I have had a mountain bike for two months. I went out on it the other day, just down to the hairdressers and when I came out the cycle was gone. It was locked but not locked to anything as I wanted to have it in my view and the nearest 'thing' to lock it too was out of site.

I have tried to claim on my insurance but they have declined me cover because of the fact that 'it was not locked to an immoveable object' as quoted in the policy? Is it worth persuing further?

Is this usual? When I told the police they said that locking it is not worth it these days as they will take the bike and the immoveable object if they want it that much!

I just think that I've been seen off. I didn't realise also that I pay £18 a month to cover my bikes which adds further insult.

Thanks for listening!

I admire the honesty here. However, I'm not sure how chaining the bike to nothing would actually do anything which is why the insurer will have declined the claim.

Bolt cutters will easily get through a chain lock and it's just a shame the small print wasn't read before persuing a claim (!)

Vic -- very true, I bet the cycle was just quickly thrown in the back of a van, this would probably not have happened had it been chained to a lampost. ?

I wonder if I chained my cycle to the Wife. ?????????????

Yes Vic --- I get your drift below.....saying it without actually saying it....ehhh ; - )

conmankiller:

Vic -- very true, I bet the cycle was just quickly thrown in the back of a van, this would probably not have happened had it been chained to a lampost. ?

I wonder if I chained my cycle to the Wife. ?????????????

I'm sure your wife wouldn't appreciate being compared to a lampost, or an immovable/fixed object LOLOL!!!

My reply was implying something else... ie. what could've been said to the insurer. If you catch my drift.

When I put a "!" in "()" it usually means there's an underlying meaning, you'll probably notice this in a lot of my posts lol!