Home insurance, window locks and penalties for failure to meet policy conditions

[Tim Watts]

Hi,

Interesting one - I wondered if there is an overriding regulation or law
that limits how much insurance companies can penalise a person for:

Scenario: A house buildings and/or contents policy positively stipulates
that window and door locks must be fitted and effectively operated
(locked) whenever the property is unoccupied, no matter for how long (eg
walking down the shops counts as unoccupied).


Everyone goes out and all doors and windows are closed and doors locked.


BUT someone forgets to activate the lock on a window, but that window is
closed and cannot be opened form the outside without force.


A claim is raised against the insurance for any reason (fire, break in,
flood). The loss adjuster discovers a window was not locked even though
it may be fully unconnected to the claim.


Is there a limit to the level of penalty the insurance company can
apply? eg can they disallow the claim in full? Or are they limited to
applying a percentage reduction in what they will pay?


Reason: It always seemed like a clause that was irrelevent, at least in
my home, as to operate a closed but unlocked handle, someone would need
to break the glass. If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier
to climb through the hole than to bother with opening the remaining
empty frame!

However, it does limit my choice of available insurance policies. I do
have locks, but I don't trust my family to reliably set them (especially
kids).


Cheers -

Tim

[Clive George]

Post by Tim Watts
Reason: It always seemed like a clause that was irrelevent, at least in
my home, as to operate a closed but unlocked handle, someone would need
to break the glass. If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier
to climb through the hole than to bother with opening the remaining
empty frame!

I'd want to open the frame if possible, because climbing through broken
glass is pretty dangerous, and you can't lean on anything.

[Tim Watts]

Post by Clive George

Post by Tim Watts
Reason: It always seemed like a clause that was irrelevent, at least in
my home, as to operate a closed but unlocked handle, someone would need
to break the glass. If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier
to climb through the hole than to bother with opening the remaining
empty frame!

I'd want to open the frame if possible, because climbing through broken
glass is pretty dangerous, and you can't lean on anything.

At that point he'd get enough purchase to break the locking handle off
anyway - everyone knows window locks are in general weak.

Their only use in the real world is to prevent someone trivially opening
a casement window by reaching through an open transom.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Post by Tim Watts
Scenario: A house buildings and/or contents policy positively
stipulates that window and door locks must be fitted and
effectively operated (locked) whenever the property is
unoccupied, no matter for how long (eg walking down the shops
counts as unoccupied).
BUT someone forgets to activate the lock on a window, but that
window is closed and cannot be opened form the outside without
force.

If the window can't be opened from the outside without force, that
seems to be the equivalent of being locked. At least that's what
I'd argue.

Post by Tim Watts
A claim is raised against the insurance for any reason (fire,
break in, flood). The loss adjuster discovers a window was not
locked even though it may be fully unconnected to the claim.

At least here in the USA, insurance companies are famous for
cancelling policies for minor discrepancies, even if completely
unrelated to the loss. The UK seems to have much more civilized
consumer protection laws, so I hope the result is different there.

Post by Tim Watts
However, it does limit my choice of available insurance
policies. I do have locks, but I don't trust my family to
reliably set them (especially kids).

In my house we have windows that lock automatically when they are
closed. That doesn't help if someone forgets to close a window,
though.

[August West]

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein
At least here in the USA, insurance companies are famous for
cancelling policies for minor discrepancies, even if completely
unrelated to the loss. The UK seems to have much more civilized
consumer protection laws, so I hope the result is different there.

It is; recent measures have restricted (eliminated) the use of
warranties (the violation of which permited cancelation), in consumer
insurance contracts. And also the placing of the onus on the insured to
inform the insurer of relevant matters.

[Tim Watts]

Post by August West

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein
At least here in the USA, insurance companies are famous for
cancelling policies for minor discrepancies, even if completely
unrelated to the loss. The UK seems to have much more civilized
consumer protection laws, so I hope the result is different there.

It is; recent measures have restricted (eliminated) the use of
warranties (the violation of which permited cancelation), in consumer
insurance contracts. And also the placing of the onus on the insured to
inform the insurer of relevant matters.

Thank you for your opinion August :)

May I just ask for a dumbed down version for non legal people like me :)

Do you mean that:

Me failing to meet a "policy exception" (I think that was the wording
they used) cannot result in a cancellation of the whole policy?

Presumably though the insurance company is allowed to have some recourse
against me though?

[August West]

Post by Tim Watts
Me failing to meet a "policy exception" (I think that was the wording
they used) cannot result in a cancellation of the whole policy?

Essentially, yes. In insurance law, a warranty is a binding statement
that some action or condition will (or will not) be carried out, and
failure to adhere to it permits invalidation of cover. The leading
(Scottish) case involves a warranty to garage a truck, which wsn't...

Post by Tim Watts
Presumably though the insurance company is allowed to have some
recourse against me though?

Indeed, if the loss was ocasioned by failure to do as promised - in your
case, using he window locks.

[Tim Watts]

Post by August West

Post by Tim Watts
Me failing to meet a "policy exception" (I think that was the wording
they used) cannot result in a cancellation of the whole policy?

Essentially, yes. In insurance law, a warranty is a binding statement
that some action or condition will (or will not) be carried out, and
failure to adhere to it permits invalidation of cover. The leading
(Scottish) case involves a warranty to garage a truck, which wsn't...

Post by Tim Watts
Presumably though the insurance company is allowed to have some
recourse against me though?

Indeed, if the loss was ocasioned by failure to do as promised - in your
case, using he window locks.

Thank you - that is actually a lot less worrying. And "fairer" in the
everyman version of "fair".

If I failed to lock something and the thief used exactly that omission
to exploit an opportunity to rob me, I would not really be able to
complain if the insurers factored it in.

It was the pathological cases, like "your house burnt down due to a
washing machine fault, but we noticed a window was not locked so tough
luck sonny" that I was worried about.

[Robin]

Post by August West
It is; recent measures have restricted (eliminated) the use of
warranties (the violation of which permited cancelation), in consumer
insurance contracts. And also the placing of the onus on the insured
to inform the insurer of relevant matters.

Thanks for that - I'd missed the 2012 Act.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:38:58 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and

Post by August West

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein
At least here in the USA, insurance companies are famous for
cancelling policies for minor discrepancies, even if completely
unrelated to the loss. The UK seems to have much more civilized
consumer protection laws, so I hope the result is different there.

It is; recent measures have restricted (eliminated) the use of
warranties (the violation of which permited cancelation), in consumer
insurance contracts. And also the placing of the onus on the insured to
inform the insurer of relevant matters.

Which recent measures?

Mark

[August West]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:38:58 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and

Post by August West

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein
At least here in the USA, insurance companies are famous for
cancelling policies for minor discrepancies, even if completely
unrelated to the loss. The UK seems to have much more civilized
consumer protection laws, so I hope the result is different there.

It is; recent measures have restricted (eliminated) the use of
warranties (the violation of which permited cancelation), in consumer
insurance contracts. And also the placing of the onus on the insured to
inform the insurer of relevant matters.

Which recent measures?

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012.

[August West]

Post by August West

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:38:58 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and

Post by August West

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein
At least here in the USA, insurance companies are famous for
cancelling policies for minor discrepancies, even if completely
unrelated to the loss. The UK seems to have much more civilized
consumer protection laws, so I hope the result is different there.

It is; recent measures have restricted (eliminated) the use of
warranties (the violation of which permited cancelation), in consumer
insurance contracts. And also the placing of the onus on the insured to
inform the insurer of relevant matters.

Which recent measures?

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012.

(And some codes of practice, that I can't locate at the moment).

There are probably other things coming, too, after a joint report of the
Law Commissions.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:45:24 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and

Post by August West

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:38:58 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and

Post by August West

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein
At least here in the USA, insurance companies are famous for
cancelling policies for minor discrepancies, even if completely
unrelated to the loss. The UK seems to have much more civilized
consumer protection laws, so I hope the result is different there.

It is; recent measures have restricted (eliminated) the use of
warranties (the violation of which permited cancelation), in consumer
insurance contracts. And also the placing of the onus on the insured to
inform the insurer of relevant matters.

Which recent measures?

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012.

Ta.

Mark

[Tim Watts]

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein

Post by Tim Watts
Scenario: A house buildings and/or contents policy positively
stipulates that window and door locks must be fitted and
effectively operated (locked) whenever the property is
unoccupied, no matter for how long (eg walking down the shops
counts as unoccupied).
BUT someone forgets to activate the lock on a window, but that
window is closed and cannot be opened form the outside without
force.

If the window can't be opened from the outside without force, that
seems to be the equivalent of being locked. At least that's what
I'd argue.

That would be common sense - but the policy wording is very specific and
says "locks must be operated" which reads differently to "window must be
locked".

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein

Post by Tim Watts
A claim is raised against the insurance for any reason (fire,
break in, flood). The loss adjuster discovers a window was not
locked even though it may be fully unconnected to the claim.

At least here in the USA, insurance companies are famous for
cancelling policies for minor discrepancies, even if completely
unrelated to the loss. The UK seems to have much more civilized
consumer protection laws, so I hope the result is different there.

I would hope so - that's what I'm trying to find out :)

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein

Post by Tim Watts
However, it does limit my choice of available insurance
policies. I do have locks, but I don't trust my family to
reliably set them (especially kids).

In my house we have windows that lock automatically when they are
closed. That doesn't help if someone forgets to close a window,
though.

It would be fair enough of the insurance co to complain is awindow were
left open. But people are generally able to do a quick visual check on
that. Checking handles are locked requires actually walking around and
trying all of them (32 in my house!).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Watts

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein
If the window can't be opened from the outside without force, that
seems to be the equivalent of being locked. At least that's what
I'd argue.

That would be common sense - but the policy wording is very specific
and says "locks must be operated" which reads differently to "window
must be locked".

Yes, there's a difference between windows being latched shut, and
locked.

I once had a house with a flat roof which gave access to first floor
windows and that was back in the days when sometimes the insurance
company would inspect. They said I must install window locks on those.

Whatever the insurance policy says, I do sometimes wonder what use
window locks are on the second floor though (where the builder has used
standard window furniture on all floors).

[Robin]

Post by Tim Watts
Interesting one - I wondered if there is an overriding regulation or
law that limits how much insurance companies can penalise a person

Not something I know much about but FWLIW I think the general rule
(case law not statute) is that the insurer can only deny a claim if the
failure to comply with the policy was materially relevant to the loss.

But that could be of course be a matter of dispute in itself. Eg if
the fact that the window was not locked was visible that might have
motivated the burglar to think "sloppy homeowener, easy pickings". So
not something I'd do lightly.

[Tim Watts]

Post by Robin

Post by Tim Watts
Interesting one - I wondered if there is an overriding regulation or
law that limits how much insurance companies can penalise a person

Not something I know much about but FWLIW I think the general rule
(case law not statute) is that the insurer can only deny a claim if the
failure to comply with the policy was materially relevant to the loss.

I'd be very happy if someone were able to clarify that :)

Post by Robin
But that could be of course be a matter of dispute in itself. Eg if
the fact that the window was not locked was visible that might have
motivated the burglar to think "sloppy homeowener, easy pickings". So
not something I'd do lightly.

In my case, it's impossible to see if the lock has been operated or not.
It merely prevents the release button being pressed.

[Robin]

Post by Tim Watts
I'd be very happy if someone were able to clarify that :)

An example I think is on the Financial Ombudsman site somewhere is a
policy which required casement locks. The policyholder's claim
following a theft was rejected as they hadn't been fitted. The
Ombudsman ruled against the insurer since entry was gained by smashing
down the door. (I was surprised the insurer had tried that on but
assume the loss adjusters had targets to meet.)

OTOH if the thief had climbed through an open window, or forced a window
open because it was not secured with a lock as such, ..................

[Tim Watts]

Post by Robin

Post by Tim Watts
I'd be very happy if someone were able to clarify that :)

An example I think is on the Financial Ombudsman site somewhere is a
policy which required casement locks. The policyholder's claim
following a theft was rejected as they hadn't been fitted. The
Ombudsman ruled against the insurer since entry was gained by smashing
down the door. (I was surprised the insurer had tried that on but
assume the loss adjusters had targets to meet.)
OTOH if the thief had climbed through an open window, or forced a window
open because it was not secured with a lock as such, ..................

Seems reasonable...

From a risk assessment POV, if a burglar climbs in an open window, my
losses are likely to be manageable - we don't have a huge amount of
valuable stuff and much of it is bulky, like a TV. So there's a limit to
what they are likely to make off with.

OTOH a full insurance claim for buildings and contents might result from
a fire and it's hard to pin that on any omissions - unless an exception
included a full fire alarm system linked to the fire brigade.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Watts
From a risk assessment POV, if a burglar climbs in an open window, my
losses are likely to be manageable - we don't have a huge amount of
valuable stuff and much of it is bulky, like a TV. So there's a limit
to what they are likely to make off with.

Remember that requirements to dead-lock outside doors (if present in the
policy) are to try to prevent burglars getting in through a window and
then out through the door.

[Tim Watts]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Watts
From a risk assessment POV, if a burglar climbs in an open window, my
losses are likely to be manageable - we don't have a huge amount of
valuable stuff and much of it is bulky, like a TV. So there's a limit
to what they are likely to make off with.

Remember that requirements to dead-lock outside doors (if present in the
policy) are to try to prevent burglars getting in through a window and
then out through the door.

That would be impossible in my house as the rear door has a thumbturn so
there's always one door that can be used as a fire escape.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Watts

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Watts
From a risk assessment POV, if a burglar climbs in an open window, my
losses are likely to be manageable - we don't have a huge amount of
valuable stuff and much of it is bulky, like a TV. So there's a limit
to what they are likely to make off with.

Remember that requirements to dead-lock outside doors (if present in the
policy) are to try to prevent burglars getting in through a window and
then out through the door.

That would be impossible in my house as the rear door has a thumbturn
so there's always one door that can be used as a fire escape.

Impossible for the condition to exist in your policy, presumably? One to
check. I know the house I mentioned with the flat roof had a condition
that outside doors were deadlocked at night, and I always thought that a
bit of a compromise between fire and theft.

[Judith]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Watts
From a risk assessment POV, if a burglar climbs in an open window, my
losses are likely to be manageable - we don't have a huge amount of
valuable stuff and much of it is bulky, like a TV. So there's a limit
to what they are likely to make off with.

Remember that requirements to dead-lock outside doors (if present in the
policy) are to try to prevent burglars getting in through a window and
then out through the door.

What makes you say that that is the reason for the requirement?

I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door after they
have gone to bed for the night.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Judith

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Watts
From a risk assessment POV, if a burglar climbs in an open window, my
losses are likely to be manageable - we don't have a huge amount of
valuable stuff and much of it is bulky, like a TV. So there's a limit
to what they are likely to make off with.

Remember that requirements to dead-lock outside doors (if present in the
policy) are to try to prevent burglars getting in through a window and
then out through the door.

What makes you say that that is the reason for the requirement?

Because it's what I've heard from crime prevention people.

Post by Judith
I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door after they
have gone to bed for the night.

While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

[August West]

Post by Roland Perry
While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

That seems like a rather dangerous requirement - keys should be near the
locks the operate in case of fire.

Essex fire service, for example, say "Everyone should be know the escape
route and where door and window keys are located. Ideally these should
be kept near the relevant locks."

And Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service go forther, and recommend
!Ensure that all outside doors can be easily opened at all times from
the inside. If you fit a mortice lock, make sure you install one with a
thumb turn which can open from the inside."

And Northumberland Fre service says "Keep doors and window keys where
everyone can find them."

[Roland Perry]

Post by August West

Post by Roland Perry
While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

That seems like a rather dangerous requirement - keys should be near the
locks the operate in case of fire.

I agree, but there's not a lot of "joined up" thinking when domestic
risks are concerned. Insurance companies are more worried about the
10,000 instances where burglars can get away with the loot, than the 1
case where a resident burns to death because of the locked doors.

Post by August West
Essex fire service, for example, say "Everyone should be know the escape
route and where door and window keys are located. Ideally these should
be kept near the relevant locks."
And Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service go forther, and recommend
!Ensure that all outside doors can be easily opened at all times from
the inside. If you fit a mortice lock, make sure you install one with a
thumb turn which can open from the inside."

Perhaps they can recommend a [theft] insurer who is happy with this.

Post by August West
And Northumberland Fre service says "Keep doors and window keys where
everyone can find them."

Another similarly suspect balance of risks is RCDs which go "pop" in the
night because a bulb blows. And then leaves the resident to fall down
the stairs and break their neck in the dark, on the way to find the
consumer unit to reset the RCD.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry
While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the
keys should not be immediately to hand.

Could you please point to any evidence of this requirement? I can't find
it in any of the policies I have to hand here.


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by August West

Post by Roland Perry
While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

That seems like a rather dangerous requirement - keys should be near the
locks the operate in case of fire.

I agree, but there's not a lot of "joined up" thinking when domestic
risks are concerned. Insurance companies are more worried about the
10,000 instances where burglars can get away with the loot, than the 1
case where a resident burns to death because of the locked doors.

Post by August West
Essex fire service, for example, say "Everyone should be know the escape
route and where door and window keys are located. Ideally these should
be kept near the relevant locks."
And Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service go forther, and recommend
!Ensure that all outside doors can be easily opened at all times from
the inside. If you fit a mortice lock, make sure you install one with a
thumb turn which can open from the inside."

Perhaps they can recommend a [theft] insurer who is happy with this.

Post by August West
And Northumberland Fre service says "Keep doors and window keys where
everyone can find them."

Another similarly suspect balance of risks is RCDs which go "pop" in the
night because a bulb blows. And then leaves the resident to fall down
the stairs and break their neck in the dark, on the way to find the
consumer unit to reset the RCD.

(Not sure if you'll see this, my posts seem to be going astray today)

haven't had an RCD trip since we lost all incandescent bulbs ...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry
Another similarly suspect balance of risks is RCDs which go "pop" in the
night because a bulb blows. And then leaves the resident to fall down
the stairs and break their neck in the dark, on the way to find the
consumer unit to reset the RCD.

(Not sure if you'll see this, my posts seem to be going astray today)
haven't had an RCD trip since we lost all incandescent bulbs ...

I can relate to that. But the last 20 years is when that risk arose.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
Another similarly suspect balance of risks is RCDs which go "pop" in
the night because a bulb blows. And then leaves the resident to fall
down the stairs and break their neck in the dark, on the way to find
the consumer unit to reset the RCD.

Given how cheap it can be, I'm slightly surprised that emergency
lighting is not generally fitted in homes.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
Another similarly suspect balance of risks is RCDs which go "pop" in
the night because a bulb blows. And then leaves the resident to fall
down the stairs and break their neck in the dark, on the way to find
the consumer unit to reset the RCD.

Given how cheap it can be, I'm slightly surprised that emergency
lighting is not generally fitted in homes.

For many years, to mitigate this exact risk, I had a rechargeable
night-light plugged into the landing which came on when the mains power
failed.

Another way to do this might be to have something built alongside a
mains-powered smoke detector that came on during a powerfail. My
daughter's rented flat in a house conversion last year had an emergency
light on the landing ceiling (which were part of the common areas).

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
Another way to do this might be to have something built alongside a
mains-powered smoke detector that came on during a powerfail. My
daughter's rented flat in a house conversion last year had an emergency
light on the landing ceiling (which were part of the common areas).

Yes, as (a) there is most likely to be a smoke detector at the top of
the stairs, and (b) the stairs are the most dangerous place to be
without any light, that would seem a good match.

With high power LEDs being available, another option might be to build
a few bright white LEDs into a light switch panel to be fitted near the
stairs. Then no new wiring is needed.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
Another way to do this might be to have something built alongside a
mains-powered smoke detector that came on during a powerfail. My
daughter's rented flat in a house conversion last year had an emergency
light on the landing ceiling (which were part of the common areas).

Yes, as (a) there is most likely to be a smoke detector at the top of
the stairs, and (b) the stairs are the most dangerous place to be
without any light, that would seem a good match.
With high power LEDs being available, another option might be to build
a few bright white LEDs into a light switch panel to be fitted near the
stairs. Then no new wiring is needed.

You also need a battery, although it won't be used up very quickly (and
won't come on automatically).

[Tim Watts]

Post by Roland Perry
Because it's what I've heard from crime prevention people.

Post by Judith
I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door after they
have gone to bed for the night.

While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

How can an insurer insist on a dangerous practise?

Specifically deadlocking the doors to an occupied property and hiding
the keys.

It also seems a nonsense as generally all *commercial* buildings will
have fire escapes that MUST NOT even be obstructed for egress.

I do not believe ANY insurer actually would attempt to request
deadlocking an occupied property. If the crime prevention people are,
perhaps the fire prevention officers might be interested so they can
re-educate them :)

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:34:22 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and

Post by Tim Watts

Post by Roland Perry
Because it's what I've heard from crime prevention people.

Post by Judith
I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door after they
have gone to bed for the night.

While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

How can an insurer insist on a dangerous practise?
Specifically deadlocking the doors to an occupied property and hiding
the keys.

The keys don't need to be hidden. Just not left next to the door.

On your bedside table is a perfectly good place for them, as they will be
handy for you if you need them. That's particularly the case if the house
keys are on the same keyring as your car keys, as they should never be left
anywhere in the house other than your bedroom while you are asleep.

Mark

[Tim Watts]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:34:22 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and

Post by Tim Watts

Post by Roland Perry
Because it's what I've heard from crime prevention people.

Post by Judith
I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door after they
have gone to bed for the night.

While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

How can an insurer insist on a dangerous practise?
Specifically deadlocking the doors to an occupied property and hiding
the keys.

The keys don't need to be hidden. Just not left next to the door.
On your bedside table is a perfectly good place for them, as they will be
handy for you if you need them. That's particularly the case if the house
keys are on the same keyring as your car keys, as they should never be left
anywhere in the house other than your bedroom while you are asleep.

Not good enough, from a fire egress point of view.

Quite simply, the crime prevention people who said this are talking
without having thought it through.

Safety trumps security in nearly every domestic case, especially when we
are talking about a very marginal security advantage at the expense of a
lot of safety.

[Robin]

Post by Tim Watts
Safety trumps security in nearly every domestic case, especially when
we are talking about a very marginal security advantage at the
expense of a lot of safety.

Quite. Hence bolts top and bottom were the norm at night for a wooden
front door without glass.

As if anyone would have keys not just beside every bed but also in the
kitchen and bathroom or wherever else occupants might be when the fire
is discovered.

[Judith]

Post by Robin

Post by Tim Watts
Safety trumps security in nearly every domestic case, especially when
we are talking about a very marginal security advantage at the
expense of a lot of safety.

Quite. Hence bolts top and bottom were the norm at night for a wooden
front door without glass.
As if anyone would have keys not just beside every bed but also in the
kitchen and bathroom or wherever else occupants might be when the fire
is discovered.

I suspect that most people leave the keys, to outside door locks , when inside,
somewhere near the relevant door (and not necessarily from where they may be
fished through a letter box).

I think the idea is of hiding them so a would be burglar can't get out easily
is nonsense.

He could always come up stairs and beat the shit out of you until you explained
where the key to the locked door was to be found.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Judith
I think the idea is of hiding them so a would be burglar can't get out easily
is nonsense.

I think once the burglar is in, it is best for the householder's safety
that he can get back out again by whatever means he so likes, with
minimal damage. Insurance can then deal with what has been nicked.

So as long as said keys are not visible from the outside (thus making
that house more likely[1] to be chosen for breaking in than the one
next door) I think their actual accessibility is irrelevant. So even
the back of a back door (obviously not a door with a letterbox, or one
where the back of the door can be seem through a window) is fine, as
you can't see it from outside. Or in a cupboard right next to the
relevant door that would be easy to open in emergency but too awkward
to open through a letterbox.

[1] Home security is about one-upmanship - you can never be fully
secure, it's just about being more secure than your neighbours.

Neil

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:57:40 +0100

Post by Neil Williams
[1] Home security is about one-upmanship - you can never be fully
secure, it's just about being more secure than your neighbours.

Or looking like you have less stuff worth stealing than your neighbours.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Rob Morley
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:57:40 +0100

Post by Neil Williams
[1] Home security is about one-upmanship - you can never be fully
secure, it's just about being more secure than your neighbours.

Or looking like you have less stuff worth stealing than your neighbours.

Or that. I used to weekly-commute to Switzerland for a couple of
years, so my house was empty during the week (now quite the opposite as
I mostly work from home). I thought having an old CRT telly
prominently on display in the lounge was probably quite a good security
feature :)

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Rob Morley
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:57:40 +0100

Post by Neil Williams
[1] Home security is about one-upmanship - you can never be fully
secure, it's just about being more secure than your neighbours.

Or looking like you have less stuff worth stealing than your neighbours.

Which is difficult if you have a less than 3yr-old car that cost £50k on
the drive.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
Which is difficult if you have a less than 3yr-old car that cost £50k on
the drive.

True. However, as mine is worth less than a tenth of that I doubt I
need to worry.

I would have to be earning a *lot* more before I ran out of things to
spend money on that would mean I had enough to burn that on a car.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
Which is difficult if you have a less than 3yr-old car that cost £50k on
the drive.

True. However, as mine is worth less than a tenth of that I doubt I
need to worry.

This isn't about you, it concerns the people who do buy such cars (or
have them provided by employers).

Post by Neil Williams
I would have to be earning a *lot* more before I ran out of things to
spend money on that would mean I had enough to burn that on a car.

My last car turned out to be worth £300, and the current one isn't much
better.

[Tim Watts]

Post by Judith

Post by Robin

Post by Tim Watts
Safety trumps security in nearly every domestic case, especially when
we are talking about a very marginal security advantage at the
expense of a lot of safety.

Quite. Hence bolts top and bottom were the norm at night for a wooden
front door without glass.
As if anyone would have keys not just beside every bed but also in the
kitchen and bathroom or wherever else occupants might be when the fire
is discovered.

I suspect that most people leave the keys, to outside door locks , when inside,
somewhere near the relevant door (and not necessarily from where they may be
fished through a letter box).
I think the idea is of hiding them so a would be burglar can't get out easily
is nonsense.
He could always come up stairs and beat the shit out of you until you explained
where the key to the locked door was to be found.

And I would want a burglar I'd just spooked to have NO trouble bolting
out of the nearest door, rather than being like a trapped rat.

[Simon Finnigan]

Post by Judith

Post by Robin

Post by Tim Watts
Safety trumps security in nearly every domestic case, especially when
we are talking about a very marginal security advantage at the
expense of a lot of safety.

Quite. Hence bolts top and bottom were the norm at night for a wooden
front door without glass.
As if anyone would have keys not just beside every bed but also in the
kitchen and bathroom or wherever else occupants might be when the fire
is discovered.

I suspect that most people leave the keys, to outside door locks , when inside,
somewhere near the relevant door (and not necessarily from where they may be
fished through a letter box).
I think the idea is of hiding them so a would be burglar can't get out easily
is nonsense.
He could always come up stairs and beat the shit out of you until you explained
where the key to the locked door was to be found.

I know people that this has happened to - upsetting angry armed criminals
and making them hit you to get your car keys seems a very daft idea indeed.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Simon Finnigan
I know people that this has happened to - upsetting angry armed criminals
and making them hit you to get your car keys seems a very daft idea indeed.

I agree. Once they're in, they can have what they like and insurance
can pay for it. The best form of home security is to discourage entry
in the first place, either by not making it apparent that something is
there that's worth having, or by making sure your house is more secure
than other houses locally.

As soon as the brick goes through the window, IMO all bets are off.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Simon Finnigan
I know people that this has happened to - upsetting angry armed criminals
and making them hit you to get your car keys seems a very daft idea indeed.

I agree. Once they're in, they can have what they like and insurance
can pay for it.

So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

I wasn't talking about that (though my policy indeed doesn't - I think
it often varies by area). I do however have them.

However I have never heard of a policy that said you had to have
deadlocked doors *and* keep the keys in the room where you are
sleeping, and I would be amazed to see such a policy in existence,
simply because it defies any common sense in terms of fire safety,
which would suggest that as you are disorientated and might head
downstairs without them and be unable to return due to fire/smoke, the
keys should be in a known location within easy reach of the doors,
though for security reasons not on display nor accessible via any
letterbox.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

I wasn't talking about that (though my policy indeed doesn't - I think
it often varies by area). I do however have them.
However I have never heard of a policy that said you had to have
deadlocked doors *and* keep the keys in the room where you are
sleeping,

I don't recall the exact T&C but I'm sure it was more stringent than
keeping the keys in the lock overnight.

Post by Neil Williams
and I would be amazed to see such a policy in existence,
simply because it defies any common sense in terms of fire safety,

It's a case of competing risks in a commercial situation.

Post by Neil Williams
which would suggest that as you are disorientated and might head
downstairs without them and be unable to return due to fire/smoke, the
keys should be in a known location within easy reach of the doors,
though for security reasons not on display nor accessible via any
letterbox.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
It's a case of competing risks in a commercial situation.

It sort-of is, but it is morally very questionable to seriously
increase the risk of death/serious injury in a fire, should one occur,
for something that provides little additional security (as once they're
in, they're in and will find a way out).

I would not take any insurance policy that required me to keep keys in
a location, e.g. upstairs, that would hinder my escape in case of fire.
Even more so if I had children who I would want to be able to get out
even if I could not.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams
I would not take any insurance policy that required me to keep keys in
a location, e.g. upstairs, that would hinder my escape in case of fire.

I think many of us agree. But it does require one to look at the
conditions carefully.

[Tim Watts]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

I wasn't talking about that (though my policy indeed doesn't - I think
it often varies by area). I do however have them.
However I have never heard of a policy that said you had to have
deadlocked doors *and* keep the keys in the room where you are
sleeping,

I don't recall the exact T&C but I'm sure it was more stringent than
keeping the keys in the lock overnight.

Post by Neil Williams
and I would be amazed to see such a policy in existence,
simply because it defies any common sense in terms of fire safety,

It's a case of competing risks in a commercial situation.

It's a case of the insurance company trying to offset their monetary
risk against the risk to the customer's life. As such if any insurance
company tries to have such a condition, it should be regulated against
or expect to lose in a court action.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Tim Watts
It's a case of the insurance company trying to offset their monetary
risk against the risk to the customer's life. As such if any insurance
company tries to have such a condition, it should be regulated against
or expect to lose in a court action.

Agreed. Emergency exit keys in a house should be kept in a known but
non-visible/non-hookable-through-the-postbox location within easy reach
of the door. If there are insurers insisting otherwise (I've not seen
one), I would agree with the idea of legislation to ban such a
stipulation.

Neil

[Tim Watts]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Tim Watts
It's a case of the insurance company trying to offset their monetary
risk against the risk to the customer's life. As such if any insurance
company tries to have such a condition, it should be regulated against
or expect to lose in a court action.

Agreed. Emergency exit keys in a house should be kept in a known but
non-visible/non-hookable-through-the-postbox location within easy reach
of the door. If there are insurers insisting otherwise (I've not seen
one), I would agree with the idea of legislation to ban such a
stipulation.
Neil

I prefer thumb-turn locks - with the option of deadlocking *from the
outside"

My front door has a 5 lever mortice and a yale lock. The yale I have
recently changed the cylinder to a better one. I will change the lock
(needs some slight mods to the door frame) to a deadbolt type that has
to be locked by hand - and cannot blow shut behind you.

Mortice lock never used when we are in the house.

The side door has a mortice lock (soon to be changed for a keyed alike
with the front door and shed - less keys). I am adding a yale type
deadbolt to that too so it can be also used as an emergency escape as it
is nearer the stairs compared to our "front" door (house is weird).

The rear door was put in with a new conservatory - all 3 doors there
were keyed alike and have thumbturns.


All my glass panes are large - if anyone wants to break them, it will be
noisy. And if they are determined after that, at least with the window
handles they could just rip the handle off the ali frame - 2 self
tappers is all that holds most uPVC or metal frames handles in place.
Side and rear doors are full height toughened glass which will pretty
much drop out as cubes if broken. I'd be happy to step through the hole!

[Judith]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

I wasn't talking about that (though my policy indeed doesn't - I think
it often varies by area). I do however have them.
However I have never heard of a policy that said you had to have
deadlocked doors *and* keep the keys in the room where you are
sleeping,

I don't recall the exact T&C but I'm sure it was more stringent than
keeping the keys in the lock overnight.

I am sure it was: but I doubt if it said you could not keep them on a hook by
the door (as long as the keys were inaccessible from outside the house)

[Roland Perry]

Post by Judith

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

I wasn't talking about that (though my policy indeed doesn't - I think
it often varies by area). I do however have them.
However I have never heard of a policy that said you had to have
deadlocked doors *and* keep the keys in the room where you are
sleeping,

I don't recall the exact T&C but I'm sure it was more stringent than
keeping the keys in the lock overnight.

I am sure it was: but I doubt if it said you could not keep them on a hook by
the door (as long as the keys were inaccessible from outside the house)

That's exactly the sort situation I recall as being prohibited, but it
may take me some time to dig around for some actual wording.

[Judith]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Judith

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

I wasn't talking about that (though my policy indeed doesn't - I think
it often varies by area). I do however have them.
However I have never heard of a policy that said you had to have
deadlocked doors *and* keep the keys in the room where you are
sleeping,

I don't recall the exact T&C but I'm sure it was more stringent than
keeping the keys in the lock overnight.

I am sure it was: but I doubt if it said you could not keep them on a hook by
the door (as long as the keys were inaccessible from outside the house)

That's exactly the sort situation I recall as being prohibited, but it
may take me some time to dig around for some actual wording.

It may be worth you rooting it out - as others with the same insurance company
may not be aware of that restriction.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Judith

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Judith

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

I wasn't talking about that (though my policy indeed doesn't - I think
it often varies by area). I do however have them.
However I have never heard of a policy that said you had to have
deadlocked doors *and* keep the keys in the room where you are
sleeping,

I don't recall the exact T&C but I'm sure it was more stringent than
keeping the keys in the lock overnight.

I am sure it was: but I doubt if it said you could not keep them on a hook by
the door (as long as the keys were inaccessible from outside the house)

That's exactly the sort situation I recall as being prohibited, but it
may take me some time to dig around for some actual wording.

It may be worth you rooting it out - as others with the same insurance company
may not be aware of that restriction.

Things could easily have changed from one company and one policy to
another since then; it was over ten years ago. It was quite likely one
of those semi-compulsory[1] policies from the lender, in our case at the
time NatWest.

[1] You needed specific permission to use a different company for the
buildings insurance, and I usually cover contents with the same people.

[Judith]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Simon Finnigan
I know people that this has happened to - upsetting angry armed criminals
and making them hit you to get your car keys seems a very daft idea indeed.

I agree. Once they're in, they can have what they like and insurance
can pay for it.

So make sure *your* insurance doesn't have a condition regarding
deadlocked doors.

I would think that many people have insurance of which a condition is that
dead-locked doors are locked.

I have yet to see a quote from anyone from their policy which says that the
keys to dead-locked doors must not be readily accessible to anyone who breaks a
window and wishes to get out the door.

[David D S]

Post by Judith

Post by Robin

Post by Tim Watts
Safety trumps security in nearly every domestic case, especially

when >>> we are talking about a very marginal security advantage at
the >>> expense of a lot of safety.

Post by Judith

Post by Robin
Quite. Hence bolts top and bottom were the norm at night for a

wooden >> front door without glass.

Post by Judith

Post by Robin
As if anyone would have keys not just beside every bed but also in

the >> kitchen and bathroom or wherever else occupants might be when
the fire >> is discovered.

Post by Judith
I suspect that most people leave the keys, to outside door locks ,
when inside, somewhere near the relevant door (and not necessarily
from where they may be fished through a letter box).
I think the idea is of hiding them so a would be burglar can't get
out easily is nonsense.
He could always come up stairs and beat the shit out of you until
you explained where the key to the locked door was to be found.

I know people that this has happened to - upsetting angry armed
criminals and making them hit you to get your car keys seems a very
daft idea indeed.

Years ago, a flatmate of mine was unfortunately alone in our
apartment when it was broken into by around 3 people. He came out
of his bedroom to see what the noise was, and thereby blocked the
escape of one of the thieves. He had a broken eye socket, bruised
cheeks and assorted abrasions and bruises all around his head and
upper body as a result,

I think we always said that if we were in a similar situation, the best
thing to do is to lock your bedroom door and phone 999 on your mobile.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Mark Goodge
On your bedside table is a perfectly good place for them, as they will be
handy for you if you need them.

Fine if you are a couple or live on your own. If you are a family,
you'd want to give the kids a fighting chance of getting out, surely?
My parents used to put the keys on a table on the upstairs landing,
though they also didn't deadlock the front door, they just put the
latch down.

Post by Mark Goodge
That's particularly the case if the house
keys are on the same keyring as your car keys, as they should never be left
anywhere in the house other than your bedroom while you are asleep.

Why? I'm guessing in case someone breaks in and uses the car for a getaway?

Neil

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:33:20 +0100, Neil Williams put finger to keyboard

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Mark Goodge
That's particularly the case if the house
keys are on the same keyring as your car keys, as they should never be left
anywhere in the house other than your bedroom while you are asleep.

Why? I'm guessing in case someone breaks in and uses the car for a getaway?

Because with cars increasingly difficult to hot-wire, breaking into a house
and taking the keys is now the most common means of stealing a high-value
car. And also because a set of car keys is a gift to any common or garden
burglar who came in for anything else.

Mark

[Simon Finnigan]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:34:22 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and

Post by Tim Watts

Post by Roland Perry
Because it's what I've heard from crime prevention people.

Post by Judith
I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door after they
have gone to bed for the night.

While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

How can an insurer insist on a dangerous practise?
Specifically deadlocking the doors to an occupied property and hiding
the keys.

The keys don't need to be hidden. Just not left next to the door.
On your bedside table is a perfectly good place for them, as they will be
handy for you if you need them. That's particularly the case if the house
keys are on the same keyring as your car keys, as they should never be left
anywhere in the house other than your bedroom while you are asleep.
Mark

How is this a good idea, given that I know two different people that have
had their front doors kicked in and people go hunting for their car keys -
ending up with said criminals attacking friends in their bedroom for the
keys? Keys and cars can be replaced, but inviting angry criminals to
interact with the occupants of the house is a very bad idea.

[Mark Goodge]

On 25 Oct 2014 18:02:01 GMT, Simon Finnigan put finger to keyboard and

Post by Simon Finnigan

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:34:22 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and

Post by Tim Watts

Post by Roland Perry
Because it's what I've heard from crime prevention people.

Post by Judith
I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door after they
have gone to bed for the night.

While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

How can an insurer insist on a dangerous practise?
Specifically deadlocking the doors to an occupied property and hiding
the keys.

The keys don't need to be hidden. Just not left next to the door.
On your bedside table is a perfectly good place for them, as they will be
handy for you if you need them. That's particularly the case if the house
keys are on the same keyring as your car keys, as they should never be left
anywhere in the house other than your bedroom while you are asleep.
Mark

How is this a good idea, given that I know two different people that have
had their front doors kicked in and people go hunting for their car keys -
ending up with said criminals attacking friends in their bedroom for the
keys? Keys and cars can be replaced, but inviting angry criminals to
interact with the occupants of the house is a very bad idea.

I'd say their experience is extremely atypical. Most burglars and thieves
want to avoid interaction with householders as much as possible, not least
because any such interaction vastly increases the prospect of detection,
arrest and imprisonment. So it would be extremely unwise for people to base
their actions on fear of a very low probability event.

May I ask where and when these incidents took place, by the way?

Mark

[Judith]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:15:54 +0100, Mark Goodge
<***@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
I'd say their experience is extremely atypical. Most burglars and thieves
want to avoid interaction with householders as much as possible, not least
because any such interaction vastly increases the prospect of detection,
arrest and imprisonment. So it would be extremely unwise for people to base
their actions on fear of a very low probability event.
May I ask where and when these incidents took place, by the way?
Mark

Two masked men burst into the home of a 52-year-old Telford man and forced him
to hand over his car keys before speeding off in his Peugeot 308.
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/10/23/masked-robbers-steal-car-keys-from-telford-man-at-his-house/


Drivers should not hide their car keys when at home because it risks a violent
confrontation with burglars, a policeman has warned.
The controversial advice was given after a case in Clifton, Lancashire, where a
16-year-old burglar murdered a pensioner for his car keys.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194607/Police-expert-warns-drivers-hide-car-keys-home--avoid-violent-confrontation-burglars.html#ixzz3HFypnIiC

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:19:10 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and

Post by Judith
Drivers should not hide their car keys when at home because it risks a violent
confrontation with burglars, a policeman has warned.
The controversial advice was given after a case in Clifton, Lancashire, where a
16-year-old burglar murdered a pensioner for his car keys.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194607/Police-expert-warns-drivers-hide-car-keys-home--avoid-violent-confrontation-burglars.html#ixzz3HFypnIiC

"However, an official spokesman for the Met said the comments did not
represent their official advice, which was to keep car keys out of view.

It is estimated that more than 50 people a day across the UK have their
cars stolen by burglars who ransack their homes and drive off with the
spoils in their victim's vehicle."

More than 50 a day is a significant risk. A couple of cases reported in the
media, one of which was five years ago, is not. I will continue to keep my
keys where a burglar can't easily get at them.

Mark

[tim.....]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:19:10 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and

Post by Judith
Drivers should not hide their car keys when at home because it risks a violent
confrontation with burglars, a policeman has warned.
The controversial advice was given after a case in Clifton, Lancashire, where a
16-year-old burglar murdered a pensioner for his car keys.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194607/Police-expert-warns-drivers-hide-car-keys-home--avoid-violent-confrontation-burglars.html#ixzz3HFypnIiC

"However, an official spokesman for the Met said the comments did not
represent their official advice, which was to keep car keys out of view.
It is estimated that more than 50 people a day across the UK have their
cars stolen by burglars who ransack their homes and drive off with the
spoils in their victim's vehicle."

I find that a surprisingly high number

mostly people who have their homes ransacked will be out - with their car
keys in their pocket (even a lot of those who have left the car on the
drive)

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim.....
mostly people who have their homes ransacked will be out - with their
car keys in their pocket (even a lot of those who have left the car on
the drive)

Yes on both counts. And deadlocking the front door "for insurance
purposes" is just as likely to be implicated on those occasions you are
out, as when upstairs asleep.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:39:05 -0000

Post by tim.....

Post by Mark Goodge
It is estimated that more than 50 people a day across the UK have
their cars stolen by burglars who ransack their homes and drive off
with the spoils in their victim's vehicle."

I find that a surprisingly high number
mostly people who have their homes ransacked will be out - with their
car keys in their pocket (even a lot of those who have left the car
on the drive)

Many households have more than one car.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Rob Morley

Post by tim.....

Post by Mark Goodge
It is estimated that more than 50 people a day across the UK have
their cars stolen by burglars who ransack their homes and drive off
with the spoils in their victim's vehicle."

I find that a surprisingly high number
mostly people who have their homes ransacked will be out - with their
car keys in their pocket (even a lot of those who have left the car
on the drive)

Many households have more than one car.

What matters is how many very expensive ones are on the drive during the
day.

[Simon Finnigan]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:19:10 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and

Post by Judith
Drivers should not hide their car keys when at home because it risks a violent
confrontation with burglars, a policeman has warned.
The controversial advice was given after a case in Clifton, Lancashire, where a
16-year-old burglar murdered a pensioner for his car keys.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194607/Police-expert-warns-drivers-hide-car-keys-home--avoid-violent-confrontation-burglars.html#ixzz3HFypnIiC

"However, an official spokesman for the Met said the comments did not
represent their official advice, which was to keep car keys out of view.
It is estimated that more than 50 people a day across the UK have their
cars stolen by burglars who ransack their homes and drive off with the
spoils in their victim's vehicle."
More than 50 a day is a significant risk. A couple of cases reported in the
media, one of which was five years ago, is not. I will continue to keep my
keys where a burglar can't easily get at them.
Mark

That is of course your prerogative. But there is nothing of anything other
than financial value to me downstairs in my house, so if it gets taken and
driven away in my car I'd consider that a much better result than having a
burglar come upstairs to get me. Or my wife. But then I value family more
than possessions, as some things can't ever be replaced.

[Judith]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:26:01 +0000, Mark Goodge
<***@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
More than 50 a day is a significant risk. A couple of cases reported in the
media, one of which was five years ago, is not. I will continue to keep my
keys where a burglar can't easily get at them.

Well if you suddenly disappear from usenet we will draw our own conclusion.

[Simon Finnigan]

Post by Mark Goodge
On 25 Oct 2014 18:02:01 GMT, Simon Finnigan put finger to keyboard and

Post by Simon Finnigan

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:34:22 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and

Post by Tim Watts

Post by Roland Perry
Because it's what I've heard from crime prevention people.

Post by Judith
I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door after they
have gone to bed for the night.

While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

How can an insurer insist on a dangerous practise?
Specifically deadlocking the doors to an occupied property and hiding
the keys.

The keys don't need to be hidden. Just not left next to the door.
On your bedside table is a perfectly good place for them, as they will be
handy for you if you need them. That's particularly the case if the house
keys are on the same keyring as your car keys, as they should never be left
anywhere in the house other than your bedroom while you are asleep.
Mark

How is this a good idea, given that I know two different people that have
had their front doors kicked in and people go hunting for their car keys -
ending up with said criminals attacking friends in their bedroom for the
keys? Keys and cars can be replaced, but inviting angry criminals to
interact with the occupants of the house is a very bad idea.

I'd say their experience is extremely atypical. Most burglars and thieves
want to avoid interaction with householders as much as possible, not least
because any such interaction vastly increases the prospect of detection,
arrest and imprisonment. So it would be extremely unwise for people to base
their actions on fear of a very low probability event.
May I ask where and when these incidents took place, by the way?
Mark

One in Liverpool, one in Chester. Both in areas you couldn't possibly
describe as a rough place to live, rather in very nice areas with property
values etc well above the relative local average.

I've always said that if I realise my house is being done while I'm in it,
they can have anything that's downstairs. If they come upstairs, that's
when I fight to protect myself.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Simon Finnigan
I've always said that if I realise my house is being done while I'm in it,
they can have anything that's downstairs. If they come upstairs, that's
when I fight to protect myself.

Agree - to protect yourself (and your family), not to protect any
financial assets which the insurance company can pay for.

No insurance company in their right mind would require you to fight to
defend property. The sort of security measures that are required
relate to discouraging entry in the first place.

Neil

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Judith

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Watts
From a risk assessment POV, if a burglar climbs in an open window, my
losses are likely to be manageable - we don't have a huge amount of
valuable stuff and much of it is bulky, like a TV. So there's a limit
to what they are likely to make off with.

Remember that requirements to dead-lock outside doors (if present in
the policy) are to try to prevent burglars getting in through a window
and then out through the door.

What makes you say that that is the reason for the requirement?

Because it's what I've heard from crime prevention people.

Post by Judith
I doubt if many people actually hide the key to the dead-locked door
after they have gone to bed for the night.

While most of the risk is probably unoccupied houses during the day
(which haven't had doors deadlocked) I think you might find that
insurers who worry about the overnight risk also specify that the keys
should not be immediately to hand.

Which presumably would not be the advice of the fire brigade ?

[Judith]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:09:34 +0100, Tim Watts <***@dionic.net> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Tim Watts
In my case, it's impossible to see if the lock has been operated or not.
It merely prevents the release button being pressed.

I had a sliding patio door - which the policy said had to be lockable. We
fitted a lock with a key such that it could be.

A few years later I read the policy (like you do) - and I now found that there
had to be *two* locks fitted to a sliding patio door. We fitted a second lock
- at the top, above the previously fitted lock which was at the bottom.

A couple of years later, I read the latest policy - and I now found that there
had to be two locks that had to be diagonally opposite each other: so a third
lock had to be fitted.

On neither of these two occasions were the changes in the wording of the policy
drawn to our attention.

[Mark]

Post by Tim Watts
Hi,
Interesting one - I wondered if there is an overriding regulation or law
Scenario: A house buildings and/or contents policy positively stipulates
that window and door locks must be fitted and effectively operated
(locked) whenever the property is unoccupied, no matter for how long (eg
walking down the shops counts as unoccupied).

Not a direct answer to your question but I always say I have no
windows locks to avoid this issue. I do have windows locks but it
makes no difference to the cost of the policy. YMMV, of course.

[Percy Picacity]

Post by Mark

Post by Tim Watts
Hi,
Interesting one - I wondered if there is an overriding regulation or law
Scenario: A house buildings and/or contents policy positively stipulates
that window and door locks must be fitted and effectively operated
(locked) whenever the property is unoccupied, no matter for how long (eg
walking down the shops counts as unoccupied).

Not a direct answer to your question but I always say I have no
windows locks to avoid this issue. I do have windows locks but it
makes no difference to the cost of the policy. YMMV, of course.

My policy says that ground floor windows and easily accessible first
floor windows must have window locks. It does not define easily
accessible, nor does it require that the locks be locked.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Percy Picacity
My policy says that ground floor windows and easily accessible first
floor windows must have window locks. It does not define easily
accessible,

From my previous experience it means windows that can be reached by
standing on pre-existing inanimate objects, like walls, flat roofs etc.

(Even if you might need a bunk-up to get onto the flat roof).

Post by Percy Picacity
nor does it require that the locks be locked.

Even in the small print?

[Tim Watts]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Percy Picacity
My policy says that ground floor windows and easily accessible first
floor windows must have window locks. It does not define easily
accessible,

From my previous experience it means windows that can be reached by
standing on pre-existing inanimate objects, like walls, flat roofs etc.
(Even if you might need a bunk-up to get onto the flat roof).

Post by Percy Picacity
nor does it require that the locks be locked.

Even in the small print?

It's so much easier these days to check the small print as policy docs
are often available as PDFs.

I checked my AXA insurance and no mention is made of window locks at all.

However, a HomeProtect policy (used on a probate job for an unoccupied
property) is very insistent on them being fitted and used.

It's a very variable condition...

[Neil Williams]

Post by Tim Watts
It's a very variable condition...

Indeed, it also varies by area I believe, depending on risk. My Direct
Line policy mentions them in the policy handbook but then says "if your
policy requires it". Mine doesn't.

Neil

[Tim Watts]

Post by Mark

Post by Tim Watts
Hi,
Interesting one - I wondered if there is an overriding regulation or law
Scenario: A house buildings and/or contents policy positively stipulates
that window and door locks must be fitted and effectively operated
(locked) whenever the property is unoccupied, no matter for how long (eg
walking down the shops counts as unoccupied).

Not a direct answer to your question but I always say I have no
windows locks to avoid this issue. I do have windows locks but it
makes no difference to the cost of the policy. YMMV, of course.

I often do that - but one policy I know of actually *requires* locks and
further *requires them operated when unoccupied*.

[RobertL]

Post by Tim Watts
If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier
to climb through the hole than to bother with opening the remaining
empty frame!

the standard advice is that for maximum security it must be that the criminal must break the glass and also climb in though the broken pane. i.e. not simply reach in and undo the latch. they risk cutting themselves (and thereby leaving DNA) and also they like to know they have a quick exit in case of being disturbed.

Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't like carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going equipped' if stopped by the police.

[Tim Watts]

Post by RobertL

If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier to climb
through the hole than to bother with opening the remaining empty
frame!

the standard advice is that for maximum security it must be that the
criminal must break the glass and also climb in though the broken
pane. i.e. not simply reach in and undo the latch. they risk cutting
themselves (and thereby leaving DNA) and also they like to know they
have a quick exit in case of being disturbed.
Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't
like carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going
equipped' if stopped by the police.

I can see the angle - but my keyring carries 4 window keys just for all
the different types in my house.

Given how pathetic they are, I bet I could open almost any "key" type
window lock with them. If I added a hex key, that would complete the set.

["Nightjar "@serv2.dca1.giganews.com>]

....

Post by Tim Watts

Post by RobertL
Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't
like carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going
equipped' if stopped by the police.

I can see the angle - but my keyring carries 4 window keys just for all
the different types in my house....

I have the same number, but I see no reason to carry them on my person
at any time. They live in the key safe, along with all the spare keys. I
carry more than enough keys as it is.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Tim Watts
I can see the angle - but my keyring carries 4 window keys just for all
the different types in my house.

If that's a nuisance you can replace the handles. It's cheap and
involves two screws per window. I did all of mine just to replace them
with nice looking chrome ones rather than the scruffy old white ones.
Makes quite a good impression for a few quid per window. Just make
sure you get the right spindle length as they vary (though can be cut
with a hacksaw if necessary).

Neil

[Tim Watts]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Tim Watts
I can see the angle - but my keyring carries 4 window keys just for all
the different types in my house.

If that's a nuisance you can replace the handles. It's cheap and
involves two screws per window. I did all of mine just to replace them
with nice looking chrome ones rather than the scruffy old white ones.
Makes quite a good impression for a few quid per window. Just make
sure you get the right spindle length as they vary (though can be cut
with a hacksaw if necessary).

It's not possible - some of the windows are aluminium and some are uPVC
- fundamentally different handle types.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by RobertL

If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier to climb through
the hole than to bother with opening the remaining empty frame!

the standard advice is that for maximum security it must be that the
criminal must break the glass and also climb in though the broken pane.
i.e. not simply reach in and undo the latch. they risk cutting
themselves (and thereby leaving DNA) and also they like to know they
have a quick exit in case of being disturbed.
Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't like
carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going equipped' if
stopped by the police.

Unless their own home also has those keys ?

Due to our house being (double) glazed in phases, we have 4 different
types of keys for the windows. Personally I don't carry them out on my
keyring, but I would be happy to believe someone else might.

[Percy Picacity]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by RobertL

If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier to climb through
the hole than to bother with opening the remaining empty frame!

the standard advice is that for maximum security it must be that the
criminal must break the glass and also climb in though the broken pane.
i.e. not simply reach in and undo the latch. they risk cutting
themselves (and thereby leaving DNA) and also they like to know they
have a quick exit in case of being disturbed.
Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't like
carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going equipped' if
stopped by the police.

Unless their own home also has those keys ?
Due to our house being (double) glazed in phases, we have 4 different
types of keys for the windows. Personally I don't carry them out on my
keyring, but I would be happy to believe someone else might.

As you probably have no criminal record of burglary you are probably
not at risk of a 'going equipped' charge; conversely, I doubt if many
of those with such convictions live in a house with 4 different kinds
of windows. But I agree it should be a good defence.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by RobertL

If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier to climb through
the hole than to bother with opening the remaining empty frame!

the standard advice is that for maximum security it must be that the
criminal must break the glass and also climb in though the broken pane.
i.e. not simply reach in and undo the latch. they risk cutting
themselves (and thereby leaving DNA) and also they like to know they
have a quick exit in case of being disturbed.
Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't
like carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going equipped'
if stopped by the police.

Unless their own home also has those keys ?
Due to our house being (double) glazed in phases, we have 4 different
types of keys for the windows. Personally I don't carry them out on my
keyring, but I would be happy to believe someone else might.

As you probably have no criminal record of burglary you are probably not
at risk of a 'going equipped' charge;

Do juries hear defendants criminal records ?

[August West]

Post by Jethro_uk

As you probably have no criminal record of burglary you are probably not
at risk of a 'going equipped' charge;

Do juries hear defendants criminal records ?

Not normally, although they can be introduced in certain circumstances.

[Percy Picacity]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by RobertL

If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier to climb through
the hole than to bother with opening the remaining empty frame!

the standard advice is that for maximum security it must be that the
criminal must break the glass and also climb in though the broken pane.
i.e. not simply reach in and undo the latch. they risk cutting
themselves (and thereby leaving DNA) and also they like to know they
have a quick exit in case of being disturbed.
Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't
like carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going equipped'
if stopped by the police.

Unless their own home also has those keys ?
Due to our house being (double) glazed in phases, we have 4 different
types of keys for the windows. Personally I don't carry them out on my
keyring, but I would be happy to believe someone else might.

As you probably have no criminal record of burglary you are probably not
at risk of a 'going equipped' charge;

Do juries hear defendants criminal records ?

Well my information is probably out of date: but when I was younger
the charge of going equipped for various offences could only be made
against someone with a relevant criminal record. And it was generally
a summary offence so not normally considered by juries.

[zulu]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by RobertL

If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier to climb through
the hole than to bother with opening the remaining empty frame!

the standard advice is that for maximum security it must be that the
criminal must break the glass and also climb in though the broken pane.
i.e. not simply reach in and undo the latch. they risk cutting
themselves (and thereby leaving DNA) and also they like to know they
have a quick exit in case of being disturbed.
Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't like
carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going equipped' if
stopped by the police.

Unless their own home also has those keys ?
Due to our house being (double) glazed in phases, we have 4 different
types of keys for the windows. Personally I don't carry them out on my
keyring, but I would be happy to believe someone else might.

....and precisely how could they be used _from the outside_?

[Tim Watts]

Post by zulu

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by RobertL

If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier to climb through
the hole than to bother with opening the remaining empty frame!

the standard advice is that for maximum security it must be that the
criminal must break the glass and also climb in though the broken pane.
i.e. not simply reach in and undo the latch. they risk cutting
themselves (and thereby leaving DNA) and also they like to know they
have a quick exit in case of being disturbed.
Although window locks use simple generic keys thee criminals don't like
carrying such keys because they can be done for 'going equipped' if
stopped by the police.

Unless their own home also has those keys ?
Due to our house being (double) glazed in phases, we have 4 different
types of keys for the windows. Personally I don't carry them out on my
keyring, but I would be happy to believe someone else might.

....and precisely how could they be used _from the outside_?

It's already been suggested that some burglars would break the glass but
would prefer to open the frame for a clean entry. I'm not convinced, but
the keys comments are made with that proposition in mind.

[R. Mark Clayton]

In mine (Aviva) the effect is explicit.

If I go out and neglect to put on the alarm and / or the mortice lock then
the excess is increased by £500.

Post by Tim Watts
Hi,
Interesting one - I wondered if there is an overriding regulation or law
Scenario: A house buildings and/or contents policy positively stipulates
that window and door locks must be fitted and effectively operated
(locked) whenever the property is unoccupied, no matter for how long (eg
walking down the shops counts as unoccupied).
Everyone goes out and all doors and windows are closed and doors locked.
BUT someone forgets to activate the lock on a window, but that window is
closed and cannot be opened form the outside without force.
A claim is raised against the insurance for any reason (fire, break in,
flood). The loss adjuster discovers a window was not locked even though it
may be fully unconnected to the claim.
Is there a limit to the level of penalty the insurance company can apply?
eg can they disallow the claim in full? Or are they limited to applying a
percentage reduction in what they will pay?
Reason: It always seemed like a clause that was irrelevent, at least in my
home, as to operate a closed but unlocked handle, someone would need to
break the glass. If they broke the glass, it would actually be easier to
climb through the hole than to bother with opening the remaining empty
frame!
However, it does limit my choice of available insurance policies. I do
have locks, but I don't trust my family to reliably set them (especially
kids).
Cheers -
Tim

[Tim Watts]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In mine (Aviva) the effect is explicit.
If I go out and neglect to put on the alarm and / or the mortice lock then
the excess is increased by £500.

That seems fair and clear.

I've never seen such a clause - I might ring up the claims side and
challenge them to define what happens.