Not upheld: unfair claim decline complaint against Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Accredited Insurance unfairly declined his theft claim for a car that was gifted to him by his former partner in March 2024 and taken in September 2025. Accredited initially declined the claim citing a policy exclusion for confiscation by public authority, but later revised its position to state that Mr M failed to demonstrate legal ownership of the vehicle. The ombudsman found the initial exclusion was unfairly applied but upheld the revised reason for decline, determining that Mr M provided insufficient evidence of legal ownership and that Accredited's requirement for proof of ownership was reasonable and fairly applied. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Accredited's initial reliance on the confiscation exclusion was unfair because there was no evidence the police ordered the car's removal, the revised reason for decline was reasonable. The ombudsman determined that Mr M failed to provide sufficient evidence of legal ownership of the car, which is a legitimate policy requirement. The ombudsman noted that insurers can rely on valid policy requirements even if not identified at the outset, provided the requirement is reasonable and applied fairly. Without evidence of legal ownership, Accredited cannot be satisfied of Mr M's insurable interest in the vehicle.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website