Upheld: claim rejection - insufficient evidence of forcible entry complaint against Astrenska Insurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6374223 of 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00. claim rejection - insufficient evidence of forcible entry complaint against Astrenska Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6374223 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Astrenska Insurance Company Limited |
| Product | insurance |
| Claim type | claim rejection - insufficient evidence of forcible entry |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Astrenska Insurance Company Limited must: (1) settle Mr H's claim in accordance with the policy settlement terms up to the sum insured of £1,000; (2) apply the policy excess before the sum insured limit, not after; (3) pay interest at 8% per annum simple from one month after Mr H made his claim to the point of payment if any part of the claim is settled in cash. |
Summary
Mr H claimed under his Tools in Transit insurance policy after tools were stolen from his van. He reported finding the van window slightly open and suspected thieves used an electronic device to unlock it. Astrenska rejected the claim, requiring evidence of forcible and violent entry or electronic device use, which Mr H could not fully provide. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Astrenska improperly placed the burden of proof on Mr H rather than proving forcible entry did not occur. The ombudsman determined that entry via a window gap using an electronic device constitutes forcible and violent entry, and Astrenska failed to disprove this method. Astrenska was ordered to settle the claim up to £1,000 with interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that entry through a window gap using an electronic device constitutes forcible and violent entry as it is not a normal method of gaining access to a vehicle. The ombudsman found that the burden of proof lies with Astrenska to demonstrate that forcible and violent entry did not occur, rather than with Mr H to prove it did. Astrenska failed to provide sufficient evidence that the van was left unlocked or that electronic devices could not have been used. The ombudsman also found Mr H provided adequate evidence of ownership through photographs and testimony, despite lacking original purchase invoices for all items.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Astrenska Insurance Company Limited, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website