86
British cyclist refused £15k payout because thieves ‘weren’t violent enough’
(www.standard.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
86 points (93.0% liked)
United Kingdom
6614 readers
360 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So reading between the lines, they were left in an unlocked van, or a locked van that had a lock that wasn't suitable for securing £15,000 of gear.
My wife has two very expensive road bikes. They are d-locked onto a fixed shelving unit in the garage as a condition of the insurance. I did this because when I insured the bikes as specific named items on the house insurance I asked them what steps I needed to take.
This doesn't take away from the fact that this is entirely the fault of the criminals, 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. And I can guarantee with items this expensive there would have been explicit conditions of insurance.
We all know insurance companies are cunts and should act accordingly
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
Insurance varies. My insurer requires bikes be locked to an anchor (so not loose in a van!) But it doesn't specify a nonsense lock branding symbol like "sold secure". It sounds like their policy did cover bikes loose in a van, but had this nasty "violent" clause that they've used to deny liability.