Gripe of the day - What is yours?

[svenrico]

Originally Posted by redtrummy

I never declare security devices with insurance company's. I am not an organised person (just ask the wife)
so the time I forget to activate will be the time I get burgled.
I uprated the house alarm and the night the garage got broken into was the night it was not alarmed. Luckily the night they came back with bolt croppers to remove the bike chains it was!

Even if you have a house alarm system and it is working, how many people activate it every night or every time they go out ?!

[daktulos]

Originally Posted by redtrummy

I never declare security devices with insurance company's. I am not an organised person (just ask the wife)
so the time I forget to activate will be the time I get burgled.

When I last bought bike insurance, they asked if I had a tracker - I said I did, but not a Thatcham approved one. When the certificate came through, it said I'd only be insured while I have an active Thatcham approved tracker.

So, I called up, and they removed it and it made no difference to the cost. I'm happy now, but if it makes no difference, why was it listed? I can understand it from their perspective, but it's like they're taking without giving anything back.

The problem is, some things probably do make a difference - if you say you don't even use a disk lock, I would expect them to charge you more.

[DJ123]

Originally Posted by daktulos

When I last bought bike insurance, they asked if I had a tracker - I said I did, but not a Thatcham approved one. When the certificate came through, it said I'd only be insured while I have an active Thatcham approved tracker.

So, I called up, and they removed it and it made no difference to the cost. I'm happy now, but if it makes no difference, why was it listed? I can understand it from their perspective, but it's like they're taking without giving anything back.

The problem is, some things probably do make a difference - if you say you don't even use a disk lock, I would expect them to charge you more.

Absolutely. Which is why it's not usually worth it, just incase one day you forget to lock it with what ever is declared and they wriggle out the claim/reduce payment due to it.

I have them (locks) for my peace of mind, and the Bike's protection not the reduction in an insurance premium.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by daktulos

... but it's like they're taking without giving anything back.

Perhaps I'm too cynical but isn't this exactly their business model preference?

Originally Posted by redtrummy

I never declare security devices with insurance company's. ...

Originally Posted by DJ123

Absolutely. Which is why it's not usually worth it, just incase one day you forget to lock it with what ever is declared and they wriggle out the claim/reduce payment due to it.

I have them (locks) for my peace of mind, and the Bike's protection not the reduction in an insurance premium.

Yep, I'm also in the camp of not declaring additional security but using some anyway.

Bear in mind it's a different risk being mitigated: My risk is the chance of losing my bike/vehicle/whatever, the insurer's risk is the chance of losing money (to compensate me if I claim). So I use additional security to hopefully minimise the chance that I'll ever need to call on theft insurance, but if I do have to claim then I want as little as possible in the way of getting paid. So, for insurance purposes, I try to limit my promise to removing the ignition key when leaving the bike.

[ethariel]

Last time I mentioned a Tracker (living in London), my insurance quote went up!

[svenrico]

Originally Posted by daktulos

The problem is, some things probably do make a difference - if you say you don't even use a disk lock, I would expect them to charge you more.

I wouldn't ! The only time insurance insisted on an approved lock and chain going through the rear wheel was when a bike I had was in the garage for a while on SORN.

[svenrico]

Why are they still going on about these bloody Downing Street Parties, I thought it had been accepted and everybody knew they broke the rules of the time .Just deal with them them as appropriate under the law and have done with it. There are much more important things to deal with now, like avoiding world war 3 when Russia invades Ukraine.

[daktulos]

Originally Posted by svenrico

Why are they still going on about these bloody Downing Street Parties, I thought it had been accepted and everybody knew they broke the rules of the time .Just deal with them them as appropriate under the law and have done with it. There are much more important things to deal with now, like avoiding world war 3 when Russia invades Ukraine.

Putin has moved his troops, it's all in the past. Don't worry about it, everyone knows it's happened, let's put it behind us and think about the real problems like climate change.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by svenrico

Why are they still going on about these bloody Downing Street Parties, I thought it had been accepted and everybody knew they broke the rules of the time .Just deal with them them as appropriate under the law and have done with it. There are much more important things to deal with now, like avoiding world war 3 when Russia invades Ukraine.

...because it is important? When a government sets rules, breaks them and then lies (or makes weak excuses) it is a serious matter even if the perceived actions seem trivial later. How can we trust whatever they say in the future?

This government (and Boris in particular) has a track record of lying and illegality, they need to be taken to task whenever they are caught. Since Sue Grey (a civil servant) was appointed by Boris to investigate, and there are already rumours that her report may only appear in redacted form - the whole investigation may be tainted. Finally, Tory MPs haven't publically accepted that any law breaking has occurred - if you listen to Dorries, Boris is still walking on water. He won a landslide majority and they are reluctant to ditch him, plus if you listen to the public, he's done a great job with Brexit and the pandemic (ha ha).

Edit: remember the fuss about evacuating dogs from Afghanistan whilst people were waiting to be evacuated? At the time, it was rumoured that Boris authorised it but, when asked, he denied it. Apparently, yet another lie - it seems to his modus operandi - always lie initially and hope you don't get discovered.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2001036.html

Regarding Ukraine - Raab would probably say no one could see it coming, but we have sent weapons, threated Russia with sanctions (ooooh - bet they're trembling) and generally told Putin he's been a very naughty boy.
Biden says he won't send troops, we may but they will have to buy their own bullets says Sunak and Germany wants to appease (apparently).

[svenrico]

Originally Posted by Seeker

...because it is important? When a government sets rules, breaks them and then lies (or makes weak excuses) it is a serious matter even if the perceived actions seem trivial later. How can we trust whatever they say in the future?

We can't !
I didn't say it wasn't important ,but I thought it had
been accepted the rules had been broken so fine them or whatever and have done with it. The enquiry or whatever it is will be a whitewash anyway.