Kryptonite Theft Reimbursement For $2000 Real?

[zapshe]

His proposal is to get back at a company using "small print" to avoid fulfilling a promise they made. In this hypothetical case, paying out for a lock that got bust. The only reasonable stuff would be to register what ever bikes you intend to lock up using the lock. What's certainly not reasonable is requiring the broken lock as proof. As has been mentioned, thieves often take the locks with them, presumably not to leave any evidence.

With companies using unreasonable T&Cs and small print to void deals, I have absolutely nothing against people doing what you call fraud if it means they ultimately get what the company said they would give in an ad, online or wherever.

Thanks for being someone of reason and logic.

You cannot produce the lock to satisfy the terms and conditions attached to the lock, so produce another one instead; not by way of example, but solely to meet the terms and conditions of the missing lock. Therefore isn't it fraud?



I don't doubt that the lock company are well aware of that locks will generally be taken with the bike and disposed of away from the scene of the crime, which is probably why they make the offer. Plus of course it would be attractive to a potential buyer. But if you buy the lock in the full knowledge of the terms and conditions, surely you are accepting those conditions? If you don't like the terms and conditions, surely you have two choices: 1) Don't buy the lock, or 2) If the bike is stolen along with the lock, challenge the terms and conditions.

I never said it wasn't fraud, I said I didn't care. To repeat myself, your morals are not mine. Perhaps abiding by rules made for the purpose of self-interest are fine with you, and that's alright, that's you. I, on the other hand, don't do that if I don't have to.

Or you can just insure the bike so if it does get stolen, you know you are covered and you don't have to worry about Kryptonite trying to weasel out of it. Just a thought

Not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic there at the end, but it was a thought already mentioned.

If I was going to commit fraud, I wouldn't write about it on a public internet forum.

Certainly. Now they know my name is zapshe and everything else about me, what was I thinking?


My concerns have been addressed, thanks everyone for posting, it's very appreciated!

 

[Tin Pot]

And let me make this clear as well, my morals are not your morals.

My morals are societies morals - legal.

Your morality is criminal.

 

[Tin Pot]

His proposal is to get back at a company using "small print" to avoid fulfilling a promise they made. In this hypothetical case, paying out for a lock that got bust. The only reasonable stuff would be to register what ever bikes you intend to lock up using the lock. What's certainly not reasonable is requiring the broken lock as proof. As has been mentioned, thieves often take the locks with them, presumably not to leave any evidence.

With companies using unreasonable T&Cs and small print to void deals, I have absolutely nothing against people doing what you call fraud if it means they ultimately get what the company said they would give in an ad, online or wherever.

I can see where you might think this is reasonable, but this is the scenario:

A bike is locked with a Kryptonite lock.

The bike is stolen.

There is no evidence that the lock failed.

We create evidence so that Kryptonite pay out.

—hopefully that’s self explanatory.

When companies use T&Cs that are in your opinion unreasonable. DONT USE THEM. It’s not a green light to commit fraud.

 

[Profpointy]

I can see where you might think this is reasonable, but this is the scenario:

A bike is locked with a Kryptonite lock.

The bike is stolen.

There is no evidence that the lock failed.

We create evidence so that Kryptonite pay out.

—hopefully that’s self explanatory.

When companies use T&Cs that are in your opinion unreasonable. DONT USE THEM. It’s not a green light to commit fraud.

Quite ! If the company's adverising indicates a shonky or grudging guarantee, rather than selling the lock ots merits, I'd be questioning the quality of the product itself.

By way of contrast, Pelikan make heavy duty plastic cases and torches with a hugely generous guarantee with the only get out being "bear attack or use by small children" I broke a small torch after many years of quite obviously extremely rough treatment, stated that it hadn't been used by bears or small children and they sent me a new one. Similarly we'd dropped on of their cases some 30 foot in a cave smashing it. Also replaced no bother despite us having cut a 2" square hold in the side to fit an electrical socket. Now that's a guarantee ! Of course, they get lots of free publicity for every story like this, and they will always be my first choice for this sort of product, despite bing pricey. Also despite being expensive items, I imagine the cost to them is the up front cost setting up the molds rather.than the individial cost of making one item. But it does show that fair dealing, even to the point of being ridiculously generous, can pay off

 

[vickster]

Thanks for being someone of reason and logic.



I never said it wasn't fraud, I said I didn't care. To repeat myself, your morals are not mine. Perhaps abiding by rules made for the purpose of self-interest are fine with you, and that's alright, that's you. I, on the other hand, don't do that if I don't have to.



Not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic there at the end, but it was a thought already mentioned.



Certainly. Now they know my name is zapshe and everything else about me, what was I thinking?


My concerns have been addressed, thanks everyone for posting, it's very appreciated!

As an avid reviewer of Ts & Cs, presumably you are fully aware of those you agreed to when you signed up to the site, notably...

We reserve the right to reveal information we know about you in the event of any legal action arising from any content posted by you

 

[smutchin]

Certainly. Now they know my name is zapshe and everything else about me, what was I thinking?

What did you expect us to say? Fraud is a great idea and we all wholly endorse it?

You asked us to let you know what we think.

 

[jefmcg]

I never said it wasn't fraud, I said I didn't care.

Do you also not care about the crime you need to commit? Your claim needs to include a copy of the police report, so you will need to lie to the police when making that report. That is wasting the police's time or perverting the course of justice.

 

[Tin Pot]

It's also not the brightest form of fraud. Spend an extra £50-£70 on a second lock that you don't need, on the off chance that someone steals your bike and takes the broken lock with them, so you can then fake damage to the spare lock. Really? Much simpler to just buy one lock and spend the rest of the money insuring your bike against theft.

I don't think anyone should be under the impression that any lock is unbreakable. Of course they can be picked by specialists. Of course an angle grinder can cut them. You'd have to be very naive to think otherwise. I've not checked but I very much doubt that Kryptonite or any other manufacturer claim that their lock is unbreakable.

Exactly.

If I bought two locks (which I have) I wouldn’t be leaving one at home for fraud, I’d be using two locks (different manufacturers) to secure my bike!

 

[PaulSB]

This all seems very complicated. My valuable bikes are locked to the wall in the garage. If they get stolen my insurance company’s T&Cs have been complied with.

I never let my valuable bikes out of my sight when they are not in the garage.

I’ve got a £75 hybrid with a cafe lock for other situations.

Get a decent insurance company and avoid a criminal record for fraud.

 

[zapshe]

My morals are societies morals - legal.

Your morality is criminal.

Doesn't change my statement

As an avid reviewer of Ts & Cs, presumably you are fully aware of those you agreed to when you signed up to the site, notably...

We reserve the right to reveal information we know about you in the event of any legal action arising from any content posted by you

You have no information. I use a VPN and other forms of security online. Moreover, to release my information legally, you'll need to be asked by law enforcement. I highly doubt they will go to a cyclechat to look for information on me. So please, feel free to stick to the terms and conditions.

What did you expect us to say? Fraud is a great idea and we all wholly endorse it?

You asked us to let you know what we think. Well, what I think is that you're either naive or stupid. Or both.

No, I was talking about the actual Kryptonite guarantee. So I was expecting you to tell me (perhaps with some insight?) about how trustworthy it was.

Do you also not care about the crime you need to commit? Your claim needs to include a copy of the police report, so you will need to lie to the police when making that report. That is wasting the police's time or perverting the course of justice.

Never thought of that before . Don't know what I was thinking, I must be a lunatic.

Exactly.

If I bought two locks (which I have) I wouldn’t be leaving one at home for fraud, I’d be using two locks (different manufacturers) to secure my bike!

What an amazing idea you have there. Certainly not one I've ever considered or posted about doing ! I'll go do that RIGHT NOW !


I can't even guys. I think I'm done replying to this thread. I'm losing brain cells by the second.

 

[vickster]

Doesn't change my statement



You have no information. I use a VPN and other forms of security online. Moreover, to release my information legally, you'll need to be asked by law enforcement. I highly doubt they will go to a cyclechat to look for information on me. So please, feel free to stick to the terms and conditions.



No, I was talking about the actual Kryptonite guarantee. So I was expecting you to tell me (perhaps with some insight?) about how trustworthy it was.



Never thought of that before . Don't know what I was thinking, I must be a lunatic.


What an amazing idea you have there. Certainly not one I've ever considered or posted about doing ! I'll go do that RIGHT NOW !


I can't even guys. I think I'm done replying to this thread. I'm losing brain cells by the second.

That's ok, it'll likely disappear for many by use of the ignore function

 

[zapshe]

That's ok, it'll likely disappear for many by use of the ignore function

Does that mean I don't have to deal with idiotic comments anymore? Then thanks for the heads up ! Something to look forward to.

 

[vickster]

Does that mean I don't have to deal with idiotic comments anymore? Then thanks for the heads up ! Something to look forward to.

Or anything useful you may have received in answer to any sensible question you may be able to dream up

 

[zapshe]

Or anything useful you may have received in answer to any sensible question you may be able to dream up

How long will you keep posting your sarcastic comments that are intended to try and get at me when I've done nothing to you?

 

[classic33]

It's also not the brightest form of fraud. Spend an extra £50-£70 on a second lock that you don't need, on the off chance that someone steals your bike and takes the broken lock with them, so you can then fake damage to the spare lock. Really? Much simpler to just buy one lock and spend the rest of the money insuring your bike against theft.

I don't think anyone should be under the impression that any lock is unbreakable. Of course they can be picked by specialists. Of course an angle grinder can cut them. You'd have to be very naive to think otherwise. I've not checked but I very much doubt that Kryptonite or any other manufacturer claim that their lock is unbreakable.

It's the part that actually locks that needs to be "beaten", in order to claim. And since the keys are coded, the first going along with the bike, would have a seperate number.

The lock number having been provided by the person when they took the ""cover" out. Two identical locks wouldn't work as they'd have two seperate numbers. Unless you paid for the cover on each lock.