I’ve read it. You don’t seem to have , or you need to read it again. The claim wasn’t denied simply due to it being from a vehicle, or for nothing being broken, but due to the break-in not being sufficiently violent.

Lovely. When? There are still loads of expensive uncapped bus services in England. Any plans to finish the last change, or just keep starting more changes and worsen regional inequalities?

If they don’t want to insure possessions left in vans, they should exclude them explicitly. Denying payouts by relying on a requirement that the theft is violent is sneaky and surely should be regarded as an unfair term in a consumer contract, if not some sort of con or fraud.

If it has to be specified in the contracts, the insurer clearly isn’t confident that it’s common knowledge, so why are you?

Also, wasn’t there something in the news recently about how long it would take to read all the contracts needed for basic life, and it’s weeks each year. These companies are doing “paperwork snowstorm attacks” on our lives.

April fool?

Nice victim-blaming there. Hope it never haunts you.

Don’t be daft. Have you seen what people leave in their cars? I’ve left bikes in a car overnight, but don’t think I would in Clapham.

The AA want you to blame the victim. I blame the thieves, including the AA taking money for a service they put weasel clauses in.

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.

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.

Doesn’t mean it has the user’s ID.

Now also on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csHdwHTteOw

Possibly propaganda, but a past government. The funder of that game, “Prevent”, was a scheme started under the ill-fated Cameron government and by 2023, I think that was the Sunak government.

Then again, why shouldn’t people who act as if they’re being radicalised in the game not expect their character to be nearly arrested in the game? It’s extremely twisted if someone from an immigrant nation like the UK starts protesting against immigration, it’s not going to end well and it’s probably better for the game to explain that reality than pretend those protests don’t have a downside.

The game is from 2023. Not much to do with the current government. It was also an attempt to stop radicalisation, not shame people for having stupid views on immigration.

The game when it was online would report you for taking “wrong” decision

Are you sure? The article seems to say it would have told you that your actions in the game scenario would have resulted in reporting, but the wording seems ambiguous.