Not upheld: claim decline - wear and tear exclusion complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

D, a company letting a property, made a claim to AXA Insurance UK Plc after tenants left the property in poor condition with marks on walls, a defrosting freezer, and general lack of cleanliness. AXA declined most of the claim, determining the damage constituted wear and tear rather than malicious or accidental damage covered by the policy. D complained to the FOS, also alleging mis-selling, but the ombudsman found AXA's decline was fair and reasonable. The ombudsman clarified that the policy was designed to cover unexpected loss, not to act as a maintenance agreement, and the evidence showed only typical wear and tear had occurred. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman distinguished between wear and tear (excluded under the policy) and malicious or accidental damage (covered events). The evidence showed the property had simply not been well cared for during the tenancy, with issues such as usage marks on walls and a loose toilet seat being typical wear and tear rather than unexpected damage. The policy was designed to cover unexpected loss, not to act as a maintenance agreement. Therefore, AXA's decline was fair and reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website