Steering lock

BMW Park Lane are currently recommending to their customers that:

1. When parking their bikes on the street in London, that they always DO use suitable aftermarket security methods, for instance a good quality disc lock and / or a good quality chain

2. That they DO have a good quality tracker fitted and activated

3. That they DO NOT use the steering lock

Good advice regarding 1 and 2. The reason why they recommend action 3, is that the thieves will very often irreparably damage the frame when snapping the steering lock. The cost of a new frame is about £10,000 if the bike is recovered. If the bike is fitted with a good quality tracker, the recovery rate is pretty good. It follows that the damaged frame pushes the cost of the claim up (which increases the the insurers’ losses) and / or increases the chances that the recovered bike is written off.

No doubt the same advice would apply just as well to bikes outside of the capital and / or when the bike is garaged.

Apparently a new keyless steering lock is £800 fitted.

I no longer use it when locked up at home - I reasoned that theives getting through four would be a good indicator that the steering lock would make no difference.

The bike also has a Bike Trac

I’ve never used the steering locks on any of my bikes.

Or just avoid London !

Something I do on the basis, if they want it, a steering lock isn't going to stop them, and if it gets recovered it isn't a write off due to frame damage.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The theory that not using a steering lock (as stipulated in the policy) but using a disc lock instead, was tested by a colleague of mine.

He parked, due to a breakdown, at a petrol station whilst he went home to fetch a trailer. He secured the bike with a disc lock, not the steering lock. The bike was stolen. The insurer (very aggressively) declined his claim, due to a breach of the policy’s terms. Failing to reach a settlement with the insurer, my colleague raised the matter with the ombudsman, who upheld his claim. The reason? That it is not up to the insured to prove that the lack of a steering lock being active - and a disc lock used in its place - did not in itself lead to the theft but rather that it was up to the insurer to prove that it did. This the insurer failed to do, in the eyes of the ombudsman.

Wapping said:

The theory that not using a steering lock (as stipulated in the policy) but using a disc lock instead, was tested by a colleague of mine.

.......................

Click to expand...

That's interesting.

How did they know he had not used his steering lock, was he up front about that in the first instance or was the bike recovered with the steering lock intact?

Andres

The ombudsman’s website also reports that they upheld a complaint when an insured person had their claim rejected, when a disc lock (as required by the policy) was not applied to a motorcycle, when the bike was locked in a secure garage.

The ombudsman felt, in this instance, that the locked garage outweighed the lack of a disc lock, ordering the insurer to pay.

Useful info. Thanks.

The insurance companies will always try it on,I reckon claims will always be a struggle.

Outtomunch said:

That's interesting.

How did they know he had not used his steering lock, was he up front about that in the first instance or was the bike recovered with the steering lock intact?

Andres

Click to expand...

It was exactly that. The insurer asked him if the steering lock was applied? He answered truthfully that it wasn’t but that he had used a disc lock instead.


The guiding factor when looking at possibly contentious claims, is what (in the opinion of the ombudsman) is reasonable and fair, having in mind that a contract of indemnity (which is all that an insurance policy is) is between a large - ostensibly rich - insurer and the ‘innocent’ man on the Clapham omnibus. The law and the ‘ethics’ if you like by and large stacks in favour of the insured, for exactly that reason.

A good example is the somewhat ridiculous argument we often see spouted on these pages that a bike stolen from a petrol station 500 yards from an insured’s home is not covered, due to the breaching of a garaging condition. Leaving aside the technical differences between a Warranty, a Condition, a Pre-Condition and an implied warranty... The ombudsman would look at the claim, its circumstances and then adjudge as to what is fair and reasonable. Not least, he’d look at what the policy actually says.... something that many people do not actually read.... along with any supporting documents provided at the time of purchase.

In this example, does the policy say anything at all about petrol stations’ closeness to the insured’s home and / or the act of buying petrol? Probably, no. Would it be reasonable for the insured to garage his bike between certain hours when at home? Arguably, yes and quite possibly the insurer had discounted the premium (or agreed to accept the business in the first place) on that clear understanding. Would it be reasonable for the insured to use a petrol station close to his house? Obviously, yes. Is the filling of a bike with petrol reasonable and the leaving it unattended in order to pay (in a reasonably brief period) reasonable? Arguably, yes. Can a theft of the vehicle happen in this period? Obviously, yes. Is it reasonable - given the circumstances - to decline the claim? Arguably, no. In short, buying petrol is not leaving a bike ungaraged, irrespective of the petrol station’s proximity to home.

Would it be reasonable for the insured to leave his bike at the same close by petrol station, whilst he went to have tea with his mum, went shopping with his sister and took the dog to the vet’s ? Or did all those things “That only take a minute or two, mate” but which in reality take an awful lot longer? Arguably, no. Take the feckin’ bike home instead and then do them all. This also covers the “My policy says the bike must be garaged.... but I loaded it up on me drive for me adventure, then I went in me house for a brew and a sarnie and then SWMBO wanted something and the kids kicked off. By the time I’d dealt with all that shite, I went out again and some fecker had nicked it.... it was only a minute, honest”.

4th dimensions as a claim handler when my bike was stolen tried to withhold paying out as they claimed my steering lock wasn't applied even though a disc lock was.
I referred to the ombudsman and upon 4th dimensions being CC'd into the email with the attached complaint I received a call within an hour approving my claim. The ombudsman didn't need to do anything at all, just the threat of it made them buckle.

fubbytucker said:

4th dimensions as a claim handler when my bike was stolen tried to withhold paying out as they claimed my steering lock wasn't applied even though a disc lock was.
I referred to the ombudsman and upon 4th dimensions being CC'd into the email with the attached complaint I received a call within an hour approving my claim. The ombudsman didn't need to do anything at all, just the threat of it made them buckle.

Click to expand...

Yes, it’s a heavy stick that the ombudsman potentially carries.

Maybe BMW should get the design team to think up a better steering lock solution.

Still, if they can sell new frames, instead of a few simple parts, I guess they have it cracked financially.

Further to the clause regarding distance from home or the 10pm to 6am clause, when I was seeking a quote from RH Specalist Insurance, I mentioned the incident of my Transalp being stolen from my driveway at about 04.45 and me considering it not insured due to not being garaged prior to 6am, they said that only applies "when not in use".
Removing the bike from the garage and it being stolen while I was inside the house in order to do final kit up and house lock up ready to ride to work was viewed as the bike being in use.
Leaving it overnight with no intention of using it would be outside of the clause (initially by Footman James).
Likewise, parked outside a shop or filling station etc. within a distance clause while paying for goods or services is "in use" and thus not breaching that clause.

Indeed, so. The ‘In use’ provision, is reasonably well accepted and (more importantly) reasonably easy to understand. That won’t stop bikermates debating it down the phone with a chimp in a call centre, dreaming up ever more incredible scenarios whereby their awesome steed vanishes. When they’ve finished exhausting that line of enquiry, they’ll then move onto another thirty minute debate as to what constitutes an improvement or alteration..... and then moan like buggery when the same chimp charges them £50 for two seconds work to change an address. The same bikermates will then swear blind that their mate told them that filling up with fuel within 100 miles of their house between sunrise and sunset would render the entire policy void and they’d be uninsured and have to go to prison.

The only real debate (resolved to my satisfaction) I have ever had was with Ace (now Chubb) who issued a travel policy I bought. The premium was competitive and the main aspects of cover attractive but there was one problem. Whilst the policy insured for injuries sustained through riding a motorcycle whilst abroad, it only applied if I had used the bike as a means of transport of getting there. I pointed out that me keeping a bike in France at my parents or having one shipped down, whilst I flew down to meet it, was safer than me riding a motorcycle all the way there. The underwriter agreed and waived the condition. He also added that had I not had it waived, they would anyway have paid the claim as the ‘It’s safer to fly somewhere than to ride’ argument would still have applied, it not being fair nor reasonable (see the ombudsman’s guiding principles) to have enforced it.

fubbytucker said:

4th dimensions as a claim handler when my bike was stolen tried to withhold paying out as they claimed my steering lock wasn't applied even though a disc lock was.

Click to expand...

I had issues with them when I was hit 10 years ago - scheming liars then and still at it today it seems.