Not upheld: claim rejection - insufficient evidence complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Darwin

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B claimed his car was stolen from a car boot sale car park and submitted a theft claim to Darwin insurance. Darwin rejected the claim after identifying multiple inconsistencies in Mr B's account, including discrepancies about how he reported the theft to police, his inability to provide evidence of phone calls, inability to identify a security officer he claimed to have spoken to, and contradictions regarding CCTV and parking location confirmed by the car boot sale operator. Mr B appealed to the FOS, arguing the police crime reference number evidenced the theft. The ombudsman upheld Darwin's decision, finding the insurer acted reasonably in requiring evidence to support the claim and that the collective inconsistencies justified rejection.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Darwin acted fairly in requiring reasonable evidence to support the claim. Multiple inconsistencies were identified: Mr B's account of calling 999 contradicted police records showing online reporting; he could not provide evidence of phone calls; he could not identify the security officer he claimed to have spoken to; and the car boot sale operator contradicted his account regarding CCTV and parking location. The ombudsman clarified that a police report evidences that a theft was reported, not that a theft occurred. Given these concerns collectively, Darwin's decision to decline the claim was reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website