Upheld: unfair claim decline and policy voidance based on alleged misrepresentation complaint against First Central Underwriting Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6330996 of 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim decline and policy voidance based on alleged misrepresentation complaint against First Central Underwriting Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6330996 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | First Central Underwriting Limited |
| Product | home insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim decline and policy voidance based on alleged misrepresentation |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | First Central Underwriting Limited must: (1) cancel the voidance of the policy and allow Mr P to continue if he wishes and meets underwriting criteria; (2) delete all records of the voidance from their own and shared databases; (3) reconsider the claim in line with remaining policy terms and conditions, subject to the £75,000 contents limit and other policy terms; (4) pay interest on any claim settlement at simple interest based on time-weighted average Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point, calculated from the date of decline to the date of settlement; and (5) pay Mr P £500 in compensation for trouble and upset caused by the unfair decline and resulting property damage. |
Summary
Mr P purchased a home insurance policy from First Central in August 2024, declaring approximately £30,000 in contents and no specified items worth £1,500 or more. When he renewed in August 2025 and subsequently made a claim in September 2025 for stolen contents valued at around £150,000 (with many items exceeding £1,500), First Central declined the claim and voided the policy, citing careless misrepresentation. The ombudsman upheld Mr P's complaint, finding that the initial question about valuable items was ambiguously worded and that First Central failed to directly confirm Mr P's contents value at renewal. First Central must reconsider the claim within policy limits, retract the voidance, and pay £500 compensation plus interest on any settlement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Mr P's declared contents value of £30,000 was palpably wrong, First Central failed to establish a careless misrepresentation because: (1) the initial question about valuable items was ambiguously worded and could reasonably be interpreted as asking which items to insure rather than confirming total possession; (2) at renewal, First Central did not directly ask Mr P to confirm his total contents value or specified items, instead relying on him to cross-reference full policy terms; and (3) First Central chose to take business through a comparison website and must take responsibility for the entire customer journey, including asking clarifying questions if needed. The ombudsman concluded that Mr P could reasonably have believed he could choose to insure some but not all of his contents.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| First Central Underwriting Limited, all decisions | 207 | 42% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website