Upheld: unfounded fraud allegation, wrongful claim decline, wrongful policy cancellation complaint against Ageas Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6232161 of 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00. unfounded fraud allegation, wrongful claim decline, wrongful policy cancellation complaint against Ageas Insurance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6232161 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Ageas Insurance Limited |
| Product | home contents insurance |
| Claim type | unfounded fraud allegation, wrongful claim decline, wrongful policy cancellation |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Ageas must: (1) Remove any fraud markers from its own databases and those of its agents and any industry databases; (2) Reinstate the policy, ensuring any cancellation fee is reimbursed; (3) Mark the reinstated policy as lapsed at renewal at the end of the 2025 policy year; (4) Consider the claim under the remaining terms and conditions of the policy; (5) Pay £100 compensation (in addition to the £100 already paid). |
Summary
Mr B and Miss M complained to the FOS after Ageas accused them of fraud, declined their claim for a damaged TV, and cancelled their home contents policy. Ageas alleged that Miss M had submitted false and manipulated documents but failed to provide any expert evidence to support this serious allegation. The Ombudsman found that Ageas had not sufficiently proven fraud occurred and that the policyholders' multiple images and videos of the TV were unlikely to have been manipulated. The complaint was upheld, requiring Ageas to reinstate the policy, remove fraud markers from all databases, reconsider the claim, and pay £100 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The Ombudsman found that Ageas failed to provide any expert evidence to support its allegation that critical claim data had been manipulated. While Ageas accepted that an image showing a spider web crack to the TV was genuine, it provided no technical expert evidence demonstrating that the multiple images and videos showing the TV working had been manipulated. The Ombudsman noted from personal experience that image dates can change when forwarded between devices and applications. The Ombudsman concluded that the possibility of substantial data being changed across multiple images and videos was unlikely. Ageas was given the opportunity to prove fraud but failed to satisfy the required standard of proof. The Ombudsman rejected Ageas' later explanation that it had intended to cite non-provision of information rather than fraud, finding that Ageas should have taken better care in its communications and cannot be given a second opportunity to justify its actions on a different basis.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Ageas Insurance Limited, all decisions | 3,003 | 40% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website