Partially upheld: claims handling, partial claim denial, customer service failures, vulnerability assessment complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6341331 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. claims handling, partial claim denial, customer service failures, vulnerability assessment complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6341331 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Aviva Insurance Limited |
| Product | travel insurance |
| Claim type | claims handling, partial claim denial, customer service failures, vulnerability assessment |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Aviva must: (1) Settle any outstanding clothing or toiletries not already agreed to settle, in line with policy terms and limits; (2) Add 8% simple interest annually to the agreed settlement from 26 September 2025 until settlement date; (3) Add 8% simple interest annually to any new settlement under (1) from 26 September 2025 until settlement date; (4) Pay £350 total compensation to Ms C and Mr K. |
Summary
Ms C and Mr K claimed on their travel insurance policy after their hire car was broken into abroad and luggage stolen, including £1250 cash and jewellery. Aviva partially settled the claim, only paying for items listed on the police report completed on the day of theft, and declined to pay for emergency replacement items purchased abroad. Ms C raised concerns about discrimination based on her disability and poor claims handling. The ombudsman found Aviva reasonably declined the cash and jewellery claims due to items not being listed on the police report and insufficient ownership proof, but upheld the complaint regarding failure to settle clothing and toiletries items, failure to make interim payment, and inadequate support for a vulnerable customer, awarding £350 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied regulatory rules requiring insurers to handle claims promptly and fairly, and to treat vulnerable customers fairly. The ombudsman found that while Ms C and Mr K experienced a traumatic theft, it was reasonable for Aviva to require items to be listed on the police report given the proximity to the theft, particularly for high-value items like cash that Ms C and Mr K would have known was missing. However, the ombudsman found Aviva should have settled clothing and toiletries items listed on the police report regardless of specific itemisation, should have made an interim payment while handling the complaint, and should have provided better customer service given Ms C's known disability. The ombudsman rejected claims for cash and jewellery not on the police report due to insufficient proof of ownership and the items not being listed despite their proximity to the theft.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Aviva Insurance Limited, all decisions | 5,098 | 27% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website