Bike stolen - what sort of pay out might I get?

[classic33]

Update by OP. Just had a bike Chase!!! The thieving moronic twat was only riding the bike 100m (from where he stole it!!! My missus was driving the kids back from a friends house when she saw my bike (it's pretty unique) and gave chase but the little daffodil gave her the slip down the warren of alleys on the council estate where he must live. Unbelievably when she came back and told me I then went out on my other bike him and his scally mates then went past me! I yelled some abuse at them and gave chase but because he knows the alleyways I lost him, which I found particularly affronting. Anyway, pretty sure I know which road he lives on so will now just ride up and down his road until I catch the thieving twat.

I'd involve the police, past experience, because you may end up having to return it to him, whilst it gets sorted. During which time it gets "pinched", leaving you with nothing.

 

[vickster]

This ^^ report to police. You'll need a crime number for the insurers regardless

 

[Profpointy]

If it was on works premises then surely they should be paying

why so ?

 

[biggs682]

why so ?

At my work place the bikes are within the building and you need a pass card to get in so a bit secure and if mine went from there i would expect them to cough up

 

[Profpointy]

At my work place the bikes are within the building and you need a pass card to get in so a bit secure and if mine went from there i would expect them to cough up

Well if I was an empoyer and was expected to pay up if someone's bike got stolen, you can be pretty damn sure the bike shed would be removed the very next day.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

At my work place the bikes are within the building and you need a pass card to get in so a bit secure and if mine went from there i would expect them to cough up

And they'd say what are your expectations based on?

 

[biggs682]

And they'd say what are your expectations based on?

They provide the internal parking area so it should be secure in my mind

 

[Smokin Joe]

They provide the internal parking area so it should be secure in my mind

I'll bet they won't accept responsibility. They may have what they call secured parking, but that doesn't mean they take on the liability of guarding anything you leave there.

 

[classic33]

Well if I was an empoyer and was expected to pay up if someone's bike got stolen, you can be pretty damn sure the bike shed would be removed the very next day.

Suppose the bike was bought on the cycle to work scheme. Would they be able to ask for further payments, if it was stolen/removed from a secure area with limited access within the building?

 

[Profpointy]

Suppose the bike was bought on the cycle to work scheme. Would they be able to ask for further payments, if it was stolen/removed from a secure area with limited access within the building?

What has that to do with anything? The leesee is responsible for the debt. Bike does not come with free insurance.

Would you rather have the option of a somewhat secure bike shed or be told "park your bike in the street as we don't want to be liable"

Edit
Or let's try another thought experiment. You go round your friend's house and leave your bike in the hallway whilst you go out down the pub. Bike gets nicked by a burglar - do your really expect your friend to be liable because they've kindly let you keep bike in the hall. Or for that matter if you left your camera bag on his kitchen table.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

They provide the internal parking area so it should be secure in my mind

and the reasoning behind that is....?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Suppose the bike was bought on the cycle to work scheme. Would they be able to ask for further payments, if it was stolen/removed from a secure area with limited access within the building?

Yes.

 

[srw]

They provide the internal parking area so it should be secure in my mind

Liability only attaches where there is negligence. Since the employers have not been negligent - actually they've gone beyond their basic obligations and provided a bike shed - they've got no liability.

Yep, they may well consider that you underinsured it by 25%, which will reduce the payout by the same percentage.

Possibly, but I suspect unlikely. First because the bike isn't actually worth £1000 because it's not brand-new, and second because strict application of an average clause (which is the technical insurance term for this sort of clause) is difficult unless the insurer has clearly explained it. Here's what the FOS has to say: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/under-insurance-household.html

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Liability only attaches where there is negligence. Since the employers have not been negligent - actually they've gone beyond their basic obligations and provided a bike shed - they've got no liability.



Possibly, but I suspect unlikely. First because the bike isn't actually worth £1000 because it's not brand-new, and second because strict application of an average clause (which is the technical insurance term for this sort of clause) is difficult unless the insurer has clearly explained it. Here's what the FOS has to say: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/under-insurance-household.html

This was a concern for us after last year's break in. Unknown to us, the value of a couple of pieces of jewellery was much higher than expected and exceeded the single article limit by quite a margin. We were worried that the insurer would either apply an average or try to avoid paying but they settled for the single article limit.

 

[Pale Rider]

Liability only attaches where there is negligence. Since the employers have not been negligent - actually they've gone beyond their basic obligations and provided a bike shed - they've got no liability.



Possibly, but I suspect unlikely. First because the bike isn't actually worth £1000 because it's not brand-new, and second because strict application of an average clause (which is the technical insurance term for this sort of clause) is difficult unless the insurer has clearly explained it. Here's what the FOS has to say: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/under-insurance-household.html

I'm pleased to hear this, given my latest ebike is probably under-insured, certainly until it depreciates in a year or two.

Although I can see why such a clause may exist.

Say I insure a £6K Colnago for £1K and it gets nicked.

The insurance company could reasonably say: "Your premium was based on the likelihood of a £1K bike being stolen.
"A dearer bike is more likely to be stolen, therefore you misled us as to the level of risk."