There’s a certain satisfaction in arming an alarm before bed. A beep, a flash, a sense that something sensible has been done. Insurers don’t share the emotion. They look at security systems in a far more practical way.
Sometimes they help. Sometimes they barely move the needle. Sometimes they create problems you didn’t expect.
How insurers view security systems
Insurers care about risk, not gadgets. A security system matters only if it genuinely reduces the likelihood or impact of a claim.
Basic locks and good physical security still carry more weight than most electronic systems.
- Approved door and window locks remain essential
- Alarms are often secondary, not primary
- Cameras rarely reduce premiums on their own
An alarm does not compensate for a weak door.
Do alarms reduce premiums?
Sometimes, but usually not by much.
A professionally installed and monitored alarm may attract a small discount. Self-installed systems and app-based alarms often make little difference.
In many cases, the saving is modest compared to the cost of installation and ongoing fees.
Types of systems and how they’re treated
Not all systems are viewed equally.
Monitored alarms that alert a response centre are taken more seriously than systems that simply notify your phone.
- Monitored alarms can support theft claims
- Unmonitored alarms rely on neighbours or luck
- Smart cameras are more about evidence than prevention
Insurers tend to trust human response more than notifications.
Reliability and false alarms
False alarms are not just annoying. They matter to insurers.
Repeated false activations can lead to police response being withdrawn. At that point, a monitored alarm becomes little more than an expensive noise-maker.
If a policy assumes a functioning alarm and it is not used or maintained properly, claims can suffer.
Declaring an alarm, then not using it
This is where trouble often starts.
If a policy states that an alarm must be set when the property is unoccupied, that becomes a condition.
Failing to set it after declaring it exists can weaken a theft claim, even if the alarm had nothing to do with the loss.
Cameras and evidence
Cameras rarely prevent theft. They do help after the event.
Footage can support timelines, prove forced entry, and confirm what was taken.
That can speed up claims, but it doesn’t override policy conditions.
Security systems and everyday behaviour
Insurers look at behaviour as much as hardware.
Leaving doors unlocked, keys on display, or windows open can undermine the benefit of any system.
Technology does not replace basic care.
Costs beyond the purchase price
Security systems come with ongoing costs. Monitoring fees, maintenance, battery replacements, upgrades.
Over time, these costs often outweigh any insurance saving.
That doesn’t make them pointless, but it does change the calculation.
Downsides people overlook
Security systems can introduce new risks.
- Declared alarms create policy conditions
- System failures can complicate claims
- Overreliance can lead to lapses elsewhere
An alarm that isn’t working properly can cause more issues than having none at all.
Are they worth the money?
That depends on why you’re installing one.
For peace of mind, deterrence, and evidence, many people find value. For insurance savings alone, expectations should be modest.
From an insurer’s point of view, strong physical security, sensible behaviour, and honest disclosure still matter far more than the latest kit bolted to the wall.