Veste

Not upheld: misrepresentation and non-disclosure in home insurance renewal complaint against Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6261977 of 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation and non-disclosure in home insurance renewal complaint against Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6261977
Decision date2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00
FirmAccredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd
Producthome insurance
Claim typemisrepresentation and non-disclosure in home insurance renewal
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo remedy ordered. The ombudsman declined to direct Accredited to reinstate the policies, as Accredited acted fairly within their rights under CIDRA.

Summary

Ms G complained about Accredited Insurance's decision to decline her home insurance claim for property cracking and avoid her policy from renewal in 2023. She had answered 'No' to a question about signs of cracking at policy inception in 2022 and at renewals in 2023 and 2024, despite cracks being visible in online photos prior to inception. Accredited investigated the claim, determined Ms G had failed to take reasonable care not to misrepresent the property's condition, and avoided the policy as a qualifying careless misrepresentation. The ombudsman upheld Accredited's position, finding the question was clear, the cracks were evident in photographs, and Accredited's underwriting criteria would have excluded the property entirely if the cracking had been disclosed. The ombudsman rejected Ms G's arguments about inconsistency, materiality, and vulnerability, finding CIDRA fairly permitted the policy avoidance.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA), which requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation. Ms G was asked a clear yes/no question about cracking and answered 'No', despite online photos showing cracks existed before policy inception. Although Ms G believed the cracks were cosmetic and surface-level, the ombudsman found it was not reasonable to regard them as such until 2025. Accredited demonstrated that had Ms G answered 'Yes', they would not have offered cover on any terms, making this a qualifying misrepresentation. The misrepresentation was categorised as careless rather than deliberate. The ombudsman rejected arguments about inconsistency, materiality, and vulnerability, finding that CIDRA fairly allows Accredited to avoid the policy from renewal.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd, all decisions51545%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website