Not upheld: claim declined due to deliberate/reckless misrepresentation on insurance application complaint against Society of Lloyd's
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6212466 of 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00. claim declined due to deliberate/reckless misrepresentation on insurance application complaint against Society of Lloyd's. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6212466 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Society of Lloyd's |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | claim declined due to deliberate/reckless misrepresentation on insurance application |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. Lloyd's was entitled to avoid the policy and decline the claim. The ombudsman noted that Lloyd's did not record the avoidance as an enforced cancellation on CUE, which was a better position for Mr M than would otherwise have been the case. |
Summary
Mr M complained that Lloyd's unfairly declined his motor insurance claim following car theft, claiming he had misrepresented his criminal history. Lloyd's found Mr M had answered 'no' to questions about non-motoring convictions and motoring offences despite having a recent significant criminal conviction and an 18-month driving ban. The ombudsman found the misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, not merely careless, as the questions were clear and Mr M answered without hesitation. Lloyd's underwriting criteria showed it would not have offered cover if the convictions had been disclosed, making this a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA. The ombudsman upheld Lloyd's right to avoid the policy from inception and decline the claim, finding this produced a fair and reasonable outcome despite Mr M's claims about mental health issues affecting his recall.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA) and found that Mr M failed to take reasonable care in answering the questions about criminal convictions. The questions were very clear and Mr M answered without hesitation despite having a recent significant criminal conviction and a driving ban. Although Mr M cited mental health issues, no professional medical evidence from the time of application supported that these prevented his awareness of the convictions. The misrepresentation was therefore deliberate or reckless, not merely careless. Lloyd's underwriting criteria demonstrated it would not have offered cover if the convictions had been disclosed, making this a qualifying misrepresentation. Under CIDRA, Lloyd's was entitled to avoid the policy from inception, meaning it never existed and therefore the claim could be properly declined.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Society of Lloyd's, all decisions | 593 | 32% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 23,874 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website