Partially upheld: policy avoidance for alleged fraud and claim denial complaint against esure Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6403626 of 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00. policy avoidance for alleged fraud and claim denial complaint against esure Insurance Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6403626 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | esure Insurance Limited |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | policy avoidance for alleged fraud and claim denial |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | esure Insurance Limited must pay Mr H £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the poor service in communicating the policy avoidance decision and the refusal to consider additional evidence. |
Summary
Mr H claimed on his motor insurance policy after his car was stolen on 3 June 2025, providing CCTV evidence and documents showing his address. esure requested further proof of address, and Mr H provided a utility bill from firm A. esure avoided the policy on 2 July 2025, claiming Mr H had acted fraudulently, as firm A stated the bill had been altered and had no record of Mr H at that address. The advisor who informed Mr H was rude and dismissive, refusing to consider any additional evidence. The ombudsman found esure acted unfairly by not making further enquiries despite conflicting information from firm A and by refusing to allow Mr H to provide other evidence, particularly given the serious consequences of a fraud allegation. However, the ombudsman concluded the evidence Mr H provided was ultimately insufficient to prove his residence at the risk address, so upheld the complaint only regarding the poor service and awarded £500 compensation, but did not require esure to pay the claim or remove the fraud marker.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while esure's concerns about the utility bill and electoral roll were valid, esure acted unfairly by refusing to consider additional evidence from Mr H and by not making further enquiries given the serious consequences of a fraud allegation. The advisor's conduct was particularly poor—rude, aggressive, and dismissive of Mr H's attempts to provide evidence. However, the ombudsman concluded that the evidence Mr H provided was ultimately insufficient to prove he lived at the risk address at the time of the claim, particularly given the conflicting circumstances around the utility bill and the lack of persuasive documentation from early 2025. The ombudsman upheld the complaint only regarding the poor service and communication, not the claim denial itself.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| esure Insurance Limited, all decisions | 1,890 | 41% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website