Partially upheld: unfair claim decline; failure to fully consider claim complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6225591 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim decline; failure to fully consider claim complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6225591 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | AXA Insurance UK Plc |
| Product | insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim decline; failure to fully consider claim |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | AXA must: (1) continue to consider the contents claim based on remaining policy terms and conditions, considering it in full before making a decision; (2) pay 8% simple interest on any cash settlement for the contents claim from one month after Mr T provided the information to the date of payment; (3) pay Mr T £200 compensation for service failures and avoidable delays. |
Summary
Mr T claimed for storm damage to his property including a boathouse under his landlord insurance policy with AXA. AXA declined the claim, attributing the damage to pre-existing wear and tear rather than the storm. The ombudsman found that while a storm did occur with typical storm-strength winds and rainfall, the surveyor's evidence demonstrated pre-existing deterioration was the main cause of damage, making AXA's decline of the structural damage claim fair. However, AXA also declined a contents claim solely because Mr T lacked receipts, despite providing photos and bank statements as alternative evidence of ownership. The ombudsman found this unfair and required AXA to fully reconsider the contents claim. Additionally, the ombudsman identified avoidable delays in AXA's assessment process and ordered £200 compensation for service failures.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the three-part test for storm claims: whether storm conditions occurred, whether damage is consistent with storm damage, and whether the storm was the main cause. While the first two questions were answered affirmatively, the surveyor's evidence clearly showed pre-existing wear and tear was the main cause of the structural damage, making AXA's decline fair. However, AXA acted unfairly in declining the contents claim without fully considering alternative evidence of ownership provided by Mr T, as the FOS does not consider it fair to decline claims solely on missing receipts when other evidence exists.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| AXA Insurance UK Plc, all decisions | 3,723 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website