United Kingdom

You don't even need to read between any lines. It's in the article, albeit at the very bottom .. The items were never insured because they weren't disclosed and not in a secured area as described in the policy.

A spokesman from AA Insurance Services said: “When purchasing their home insurance policy, the customer did not declare personal possession of bikes in excess of £2,000.

“Our terms and conditions are clear that claims relating to possessions stolen from vehicles, items need to have been placed in a covered boot or glovebox and there be evidence of forced or violent entry.

“As this wasn’t the case, the claim has been rejected.

“We have advised the customer how to challenge the decision should they wish to do so.”

but being morally right and the insurance company being morally wrong won't lead to a payout if they can prove you didn't secure your property in a manner consistent with the insurance policy.

Note that the security or quality of the lock was apparently not questioned. It seems to have been mainly that the theft wasn't violent enough to the locked door.

There's a side mention of the bikes not being specified as high value items, but that would probably have limited the payout, not denied it entirely.

You right. Meeting the terms of contract with a mutual agreement has always been a requirement. Who knows what the terms were in their contract but 'a van' as the secure storage and 'I don't know how' they got in isn't good enough. You need to know what locks were on the van. When I insured my motorcycle I had to include the model of D lock, as I learned later, relying solely on the bike's lock isn't enough because with enough force thieves can yank the handlebars and snap the key lock off the forks. Or carry the whole thing onto a bed

Also most people who live in Clapham (and every other area) know not to leave anything in a vehicle overnight, let alone 3 bikes!