Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Lemonade Insurance N.V.

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A and Mr H claimed for a stolen bike valued at £1,850 under their contents insurance policy with Lemonade. Lemonade requested proof of ownership but the complainants could not provide receipts, photographs, or documents, only a text message mentioning 'bike'. The complainants argued Lemonade prejudiced their claim by failing to obtain CCTV footage of the theft, which they said was later deleted. The ombudsman found that the complainants bore the onus to prove ownership and failed to do so, and that Lemonade did not act unfairly in requesting this documentation. The ombudsman also found that Lemonade did not prejudice the complainants regarding the CCTV, as Lemonade had requested it before it was deleted, and CCTV would not have proven ownership anyway. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the onus is on the complainants to prove ownership of the item claimed for, and they failed to do so. The complainants provided no receipts, photographs, warranties, or documents supporting ownership of the specific bike. A text message mentioning only the word 'bike' without reference to the claimed bike was insufficient proof of ownership for a high-value item. Regarding the CCTV footage, Lemonade did request it before it was deleted and therefore did not prejudice the complainants' position. Furthermore, even if CCTV had been obtained, it would only show a theft occurring, not prove ownership of the specific bike. The ombudsman considered Consumer Duty obligations and found no breach.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website