Wisper Having a few practical issues with my new ebike - locking and quick release

[thelarkbox]

Where is @flecc ?? as this locking requirement from the insurer is a bit extreme is it "Reasonable" My lay understanding is things have to be reasonable in order to enable the forming of a contract ' meeting of minds' ?? tho i cant recall if that was judge judy or an actual basic law class..
How long should OP reasonably be expected to search for a suitable 'parking' spot on arriving at a new destination? And at what point after failing to find a perfectly suitable position can they lock in a less than optimal position without penalty??

A letter to the insurance ombudsman perhaps..

 

[guerney]

I changed to Laka this morning and already feel so much less stressed about losing and using my bike.

I do hope you'll keep us updated if you ever (hopefully not) have to make a claim - I only heard of Laka about 2 weeks ago when someone mentioned it on this forum (misspelled as "Laika" the Russian space dog, I can't recall who it was), but Laka's third party coverage at low prices looks interesting to me. Other forum members have expressed interest in third party insurance coverage on other threads about ebike insurance.

I'm hope claims aren't decided by a big AI Laika dog replica. That'd be ruff.

 

[CCebiker]

I'll be sure to come back and report here if I do have to make a claim. I saw it here too and I'm so glad I got it.

 

[CCebiker]

What they're saying is that if someone nicks a QR wheel, or your frame is not locked to something solid, they won't cover it. The back wheel is bolted, so can't easily be nicked. If you put your chain through the front wheel and frame and lock it to something solid, it would be OK and only one lock needed. If necessary put a loop of chain around the frame so that it can't be slipped over it anywhere. You only need multiple locks if your bike is left repeatedly for long periods of time. For shopping, dentist and things like that, one decent lock should be sufficient.

Just to update that I tried looping the chain around the front but if you release the wheel, then the slack creates an opportunity to slide the chain over the handlebars still. I can do it extra tight but since it's not actually *through* the frame, I think it leaves too much opportunity for theft and possibly won't be valid for insurance.

I just didn't want someone to see this later and think it was a safe solution!

 

[warlord0]

Looks like my new Hiplok DXC will be going back

My usage is going to be mainly commuting and the bike (Wisper 806T) will be stored at home or inside the office. A 5KG chain is just not appealing regardless of its rating. The smaller version, looks like a contender. Being able to fit it around bike wheels when folded and around a post is what I'm going to have to measure.

 

[flecc]

Where is @flecc ?? as this locking requirement from the insurer is a bit extreme is it "Reasonable" My lay understanding is things have to be reasonable in order to enable the forming of a contract ' meeting of minds' ??

Theft insurance isn't something I have any expertise in, but in principle an insurer can set any conditions perfectly legally, provided they are not concealed and can be easily accessed before buying the insurance.

In this instance, clearly the insured was able to not only access the conditions but also able to fully understand that they are reasons to deny a claim, presumably before buying, so I can't see that there's any basis for legal action. The insurer has simply made an offer to insure, subject to their clearly spelt out conditions. It's for the potential insured to then accept or reject the offer, no more.

See this link under the two sub headings:

"When a customer hasn't taken reasonable care"

"If you weren't aware of exclusion causes "

You won't find any grounds there that apply to this instance.
.

 

[CCebiker]

Looks like my new Hiplok DXC will be going back

My usage is going to be mainly commuting and the bike (Wisper 806T) will be stored at home or inside the office. A 5KG chain is just not appealing regardless of its rating. The smaller version, looks like a contender. Being able to fit it around bike wheels when folded and around a post is what I'm going to have to measure.

Have you got your bike yet? Do you have insurance? I think the chain around the back wheel and triangle of the frame will be what I use now that I've got better insurance, but folding it and looping through both is a good option for in town or longer stays.

 

[CCebiker]

Theft insurance isn't something I have any expertise in, but in principle an insurer can set any conditions perfectly legally, provided they are not concealed and can be easily accessed before buying the insurance.

In this instance, clearly the insured was able to not only access the conditions but also able to fully understand that they are reasons to deny a claim, presumably before buying, so I can't see that there's any basis for legal action. The insurer has simply made an offer to insure subject to their clearly spelt out conditions. It's for the potential insured to then accept or reject the offer, no more.

See this link under the sub heading:

"If you weren't aware of exclusion causes "

You won't find any grounds there that apply to this instance.
.

I definitely wasn't planning on taking legal action or anything like that but just for clarity, I was sent the new updated terms after asking about how to lock my bike the day after I got it. I also wasn't aware my bike could not be locked in the way they ask until I had my bike a month after ordering.

It's all moot for me now but out of interest, if I hadn't cancelled the insurance today, would I be held to the updated requirements if they were changed after I purchased the insurance and received my bike?

 

[warlord0]

Have you got your bike yet? Do you have insurance? I think the chain around the back wheel and triangle of the frame will be what I use now that I've got better insurance, but folding it and looping through both is a good option for in town or longer stays.

Yep, have my shiny new(ish) 806T folded up and waiting on a battery... 0 miles to date. Roll on Friday.

 

[CCebiker]

Yep, have my shiny new(ish) 806T folded up and waiting on a battery... 0 miles to date. Roll on Friday.

How exciting! It really is a great bike and the torque option is so smooth. Hence why I've been so worried about it getting stolen!

 

[flecc]

It's all moot for me now but out of interest, if I hadn't cancelled the insurance today, would I be held to the updated requirements if they were changed after I purchased the insurance and received my bike?

No. Only the conditions you saw before the point of insurance purchase applied. That;s why you waere able to opt out of the insurance, the later change was unenforeceable.
.

 

[CCebiker]

No. Only the conditions you saw before the point of insurance purchase applied. That;s why you waere able to opt out of the insurance, the later change was unenforeceable.
.

I was within my 14 days of the insurance starting so that's how I cancelled but this is good to know for future, thanks!

 

[Az.]

The insurer has simply made an offer to insure, subject to their clearly spelt out conditions. It's for the potential insured to then accept or reject the offer, no more.

HA! Before I bought motor from Woosh I was sent terms and conditions to read and approve. I didn't like what was there and I asked for some changes... and it has been done for me. What is the likelihood of something like that with big company?
Woosh is the best

 

[AntonyC]

The insurer has simply made an offer to insure, subject to their clearly spelt out conditions. It's for the potential insured to then accept or reject the offer, no more.

@flecc That was my understanding too so I'm sorry to dredge up this old chestnut but it makes me nervous. What do you make of this line from the policy in the context of an offer to insure, where it seems to exclude all retailed electric bikes? Myself I'd ask the broker to get the insurer to approve the correct wording.

BackPedal Customer Terms and Conditions: Bicycle means one of the following: [...] assisted by an electric motor of no more than 250 watts maximum power output

 

[Az.]

BackPedal Customer Terms and Conditions: Bicycle means one of the following: [...] assisted by an electric motor of no more than 250 watts maximum power output

We discussed it before. Flecc said policy is still valid, but I must say I have my doubts.
It is all because insurers copy/paste incorrect information from gov.co.uk pages. I reported problem, but they just ignored me.

Electric bikes: licensing, tax and insurance

Electric bikes meeting the EAPC regulations can be ridden on the road without being taxed, licensed or insured

www.gov.uk

 

[guerney]

250 watts maximum power output

I've seen that on so many insurer websites and/or policies, I've stopped reading them; suspect it's intentionally inaccurate to enable wriggling out of payouts, or intended to reduce expectation of getting a payout in the event, which I guess is when the majority of people actually read the policy documentation for the insurance they've paid for. I believe policies only appear to be badly written, but are in fact collections of cleverly constructed nonsensical illogical sentences, designed to make the reader lose all hope of ever receiving a payout, and to squash any notion of ever taking the insurer to court.

 

[flecc]

@flecc That was my understanding too so I'm sorry to dredge up this old chestnut but it makes me nervous. What do you make of this line from the policy in the context of an offer to insure, where it seems to exclude all retailed electric bikes? Myself I'd ask the broker to get the insurer to approve the correct wording.

BackPedal Customer Terms and Conditions: Bicycle means one of the following: [...] assisted by an electric motor of no more than 250 watts maximum power output

Yes, it should use the correct wording, maximum continuous rated power. But that careless drafting would make no difference to a claim when the supplied motor or bike was marked 250 watts and no larger number was mentioned as part of the sale.

I don't see anything underhand, they were simply protecting themselves from deliberately overpowered machines not covered by the EAPC exemption in Type Approval law.
.