Thistle Insurance refuses to pay out for bike thefts on technicality

phy2sll wrote:

Motor insurers went for 20 years without making a profit in the UK.

I would have thought that a company that made a loss for twenty years would be an ex-company. Presumably they think it economically worthwhile to subsidise their motor division in order to stay in the market.

felixcat wrote:

phy2sll wrote:

Motor insurers went for 20 years without making a profit in the UK.

I would have thought that a company that made a loss for twenty years would be an ex-company. Presumably they think it economically worthwhile to subsidise their motor division in order to stay in the market.

Underwriting profit.

Most personal lines (household, motor) insurers only make a profit due to their investments of the premiums they received up front. Hence why they charge a surcharge on payment by instalments - makes up for the loss of investment opportunity.

phy2sll wrote:

felixcat wrote:

That is the point I am making. You have understood it.
Insurance companies like to pose as benevolent, even almost charitable, organisations but in the long term they win and you lose.
By that I mean, they take more in premiums than they pay out in claims, in the long term, on average. If they did not they would go out of business.
If you can take the hit you are better off keeping the money in your pocket.

Motor insurers went for 20 years without making a profit in the UK.

http://www.barnett-waddingham.co.uk/comment-insight/blog/2014/09/02/uk-m...

Isn't motor insurance a special case though? Because its compulsory and so probably considered a social-good, and also heavily subject to political pressure.
(Maybe the link discusses that - didn't click on it, sorry!)

felixcat wrote:

bikebot wrote:

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Do you prefer insurance companies that pay out on a claim, or ones that don't?

I haven't insured any bikes for theft in ten years as the policies no longer offer good value for money.

That is the point I am making. You have understood it.
Insurance companies like to pose as benevolent, even almost charitable, organisations but in the long term they win and you lose.
By that I mean, they take more in premiums than they pay out in claims, in the long term, on average. If they did not they would go out of business.
If you can take the hit you are better off keeping the money in your pocket.

Yeah, I tend to think insurance usually isn't worth it (with the possible exception of potentially catastrophic things like breaking your back while abroad or accidentally maiming someone).

I mean, if it were likely to benefit you more than it cost, they wouldn't offer it, would they? They only offer insurance because they've worked out they can get more from you than its worth. Plus they will have better lawyers than you can afford.

As for 'read the small print' - given its usually in incomprehensible legalese, its hardly worth the bother or the eye-strain.

Better to just assume it amounts to 'we will never pay out anything, ever - now give us your money'.

I'd rather hire a gentleman's gentleman to accompany me and stand guard over my bike whereever I left it (also a possible waste of money, but more stylish).

felixcat wrote:

bikebot wrote:

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Do you prefer insurance companies that pay out on a claim, or ones that don't?

I haven't insured any bikes for theft in ten years as the policies no longer offer good value for money.

That is the point I am making. You have understood it.
Insurance companies like to pose as benevolent, even almost charitable, organisations but in the long term they win and you lose.
By that I mean, they take more in premiums than they pay out in claims, in the long term, on average. If they did not they would go out of business.
If you can take the hit you are better off keeping the money in your pocket.

Absolutely spot on: Insurance premium = Replacement cost + piss taking cost (fraud) + insurance company admin cost + insurance company profit.

If you self insure then you don't have to speak to and negotiate with anyone and the only cost is "Replacement cost". It's far cheaper than paying for all the add ons and being uninsured I'm more careful. I can afford to self insure my bike and the sooner cycle insurance is flushed out of existence the better. From experience, the largest factor in my equation above is the piss factor from people who expect a nice flash shiny new bike every 3 years at the insurance companies (aka other customers) expense.

Of course, the above calculation doesn't include the additional cost to the public purse of having to report the theft and obtain a crime number from the rozzers for an insurance claim to be honoured.

BigglesMeister wrote:

Absolutely spot on: Insurance premium = Replacement cost + piss taking cost (fraud) + insurance company admin cost + insurance company profit.

If you self insure then you don't have to speak to and negotiate with anyone and the only cost is "Replacement cost". It's far cheaper than paying for all the add ons and being uninsured I'm more careful. I can afford to self insure my bike and the sooner cycle insurance is flushed out of existence the better. From experience, the largest factor in my equation above is the piss factor from people who expect a nice flash shiny new bike every 3 years at the insurance companies (aka other customers) expense.

Of course, the above calculation doesn't include the additional cost to the public purse of having to report the theft and obtain a crime number from the rozzers for an insurance claim to be honoured.

Agreed. Cycle insurance simply doesn't work as a business prospect as the insurer has so little control of the circumstances of the way a bike is used and secured. Therefore they quote ridiculous premiums and then use every means possible to limit their liabilities. It's the only way it can work for them ... and it can simply never work for us.

But then insurance was never really designed to cover relatively small losses of a few hundred or a thousand quid or two (in circumstances which were quite likely to happen anyway). It was supposed to guard against exceptional, catastrophic and unforeseen losses than could otherwise wipe a man and his family out.

Basically don't leave a bike available to thieves that you can't afford to replace.

felixcat wrote:

That is great for you, but it was not the insurance company that paid. The money came from customer premiums.

By that logic, when you bought your bike, it wasn't you who paid, it was your employer. The money came from the salary the employer pays.

Iamnot Wiggins wrote:

There you have it folks, this is why the cheapest policy isn't always the best. To all the people who are happy to spend thousands on bikes and then balk at paying more than a couple of hundred quid per annum to insure them along with the rest of their stuff on a worldwide all risk basis, bear this story in mind.

If you are somebody that does actually place value in having insurance that does and will pay out in the event of a theft or damage then please PM me and I will be more than happy to assist. Many happy cycling clients already on my books.

The cheapest policy over a lifetime is likely to be not having insurance. The cost of insurance for a few years is the cost of a bike. That's how they make their money. Insuring for risks that you can't financially afford to lose makes sense. Bike insurance, probably not worth it in the long term.

kie7077 wrote:

Iamnot Wiggins wrote:

There you have it folks, this is why the cheapest policy isn't always the best. To all the people who are happy to spend thousands on bikes and then balk at paying more than a couple of hundred quid per annum to insure them along with the rest of their stuff on a worldwide all risk basis, bear this story in mind.

If you are somebody that does actually place value in having insurance that does and will pay out in the event of a theft or damage then please PM me and I will be more than happy to assist. Many happy cycling clients already on my books.

The cheapest policy over a lifetime is likely to be not having insurance. The cost of insurance for a few years is the cost of a bike. That's how they make their money. Insuring for risks that you can't financially afford to lose makes sense. Bike insurance, probably not worth it in the long term.

No doubt that self insurance is cheaper and of course, there are many who do it.
However, my premium over the course of a couple of years isn't enough to replace my wheels let alone one of my bikes in its entirety! As you quite rightly imply, people should really only claim for the larger losses but I really don't have tens of thousands lying around to replace stolen or damaged bikes or replace my contents etc after a fire so I'm happy to continue paying my low monthly
payments in the knowledge that I've got excellent insurance that will have money to me within 48 hours. How do I know this? I put the policy together myself and work with the claims team daily

Iamnot Wiggins wrote:

However, my premium over the course of a couple of years isn't enough to replace my wheels let alone one of my bikes in its entirety!

How much is bike insurance these days? Last time I looked it was often about £10 per hundred p.a.

marcswales wrote:

Why are insurance companies thought of as reputable , whilst bookmakers are looked down on? You would be much better off making a bet against your bike being stolen with a bookie than trust the welching weasel word using insurance company

That's what insurance basically is, a bet against an event happening, only thing is we keep punting year after year.
What's that definition of insanity and repetition?

kwi wrote:

marcswales wrote:

Why are insurance companies thought of as reputable , whilst bookmakers are looked down on? You would be much better off making a bet against your bike being stolen with a bookie than trust the welching weasel word using insurance company

That's what insurance basically is, a bet against an event happening, only thing is we keep punting year after year.
What's that definition of insanity and repetition?

Its the insurance company that is betting it won't happen, you are betting it will.
A bookie or an insurance company profits by adjusting the odds or the premium so that, on average, they come out ahead. On top of the payouts for customers' losses your premium pays for the companies overheads and profits. If you are more careful than the average customer you are not looking at a good bet. If you can take the hit you are better off keeping the money in your own pocket.
Many bike owners are more careless with their bike security than me, and maybe than you. We pay for this, in the long run.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

It always pays to read the small print. Hopefully they have home insurance.

If you read the article, Thistle's representative states as AG had claimed on his own insurance, they were refunding his premium plus £100.00 for the distress caused. Personally I think they should contact the home insurer, get the claim waived & pay it themselves as AG will now have lost some of his home insurance NCB. Welching scumbags

multifrag wrote:

That is why I never trusted insurance companies as they will always find a way not to pay out...

Which is what they have to try and do to reduce the risk they are exposed to.

The main concern for me is all these new flats that are being built that have "secure" bike storage will be hit.