Not upheld: claim rejection based on suspected fraud/misrepresentation complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6246273 of 2026-05-18T00:00:00+00:00. claim rejection based on suspected fraud/misrepresentation complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6246273 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | AXA Insurance UK Plc |
| Product | insurance |
| Claim type | claim rejection based on suspected fraud/misrepresentation |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr S claimed on his motorhome insurance policy after the vehicle was stolen in March 2025. AXA requested a purchase invoice to help determine the vehicle's specification for valuation purposes. Mr S initially stated he didn't have one, then rapidly provided invoices with inconsistencies: the first had an incorrect registration number, and document properties showed the amended invoice was created on 18 April 2025 despite being dated 2 April 2025. Mr S could not clearly explain how he received the invoices from the seller, and the seller was uncertain about providing a copy after the theft. Furthermore, Mr S claimed to have paid £29,500 total but could only document £16,000 in bank transfers, claiming the remaining £13,500 was paid in cash without supporting evidence. The Ombudsman upheld AXA's decision to reject the claim as the invoices appeared unreliable and the purchase price remained inadequately substantiated.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The Ombudsman found that AXA reasonably requested the purchase invoice to help determine the vehicle's specification for market value research. The Ombudsman was satisfied that AXA's concerns about the invoices were well-founded: the rapid production of an invoice with an incorrect registration, the discrepancy between the document date and creation date, Mr S's inability to explain how he received the invoices, and the seller's uncertainty about providing a copy after the theft all supported AXA's conclusion that the invoices were 'not factual'. Additionally, the significant gap between the stated purchase price (£29,500) and documented bank transfers (£16,000) remained unexplained, with Mr S claiming the balance was paid in cash without supporting evidence. The Ombudsman concluded that AXA reasonably declined the claim under the policy's fraud and misrepresentation terms.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| AXA Insurance UK Plc, all decisions | 3,716 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website