Partially upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Ageas Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6415104 of 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00. Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Ageas Insurance Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6415104 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Ageas Insurance Limited |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | Home insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Ageas Insurance Limited must: (1) Consider the building damage claim further and determine settlement approach (repair quote or schedule of repairs) while bearing in mind Ms R's medical conditions; (2) Pay £34,396.46 to settle the contents claim if not already paid; (3) Pay £150 compensation for lack of clarity in initial claim settlement offer if not already paid. |
Summary
Ms R complained about Ageas' settlement of her home insurance claim following a theft, claiming the offer of approximately £35,000 left her with a substantial shortfall due to underinsurance. She also raised concerns about policy sale clarity, particularly regarding a £2,000,000 figure in the policy summary, and cited her medical conditions affecting her ability to understand complex documents. The ombudsman found Ageas correctly applied policy limits and valuations, and that the timing difference between policy inception (early 2024) and valuation (late 2025) did not make the settlement unfair. While rejecting arguments about proactive vulnerability identification at sale, the ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding claim handling clarity and required Ageas to further consider the building damage claim while accounting for Ms R's medical conditions.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Ageas applied policy terms and limits correctly when settling the contents claim, and that the valuations obtained by Ageas were reasonable with no contradictory evidence provided. Regarding the timing difference between policy inception (early 2024) and valuation (late 2025), the ombudsman determined Ageas was not responsible for losses due to rising costs as it caused no material delays. On the policy sale, while the policy summary contained a formatting error, the ombudsman found Ms R could not reasonably have understood she had £2,000,000 theft cover given the other documents clearly stated £50,000 limits. The ombudsman rejected the argument that Ageas should have proactively asked about vulnerabilities during sale, noting guidance expects firms to respond to indicated vulnerabilities rather than routinely ask all customers. However, the ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding claim handling clarity, finding Ageas should have provided a clearer breakdown of the settlement offer given the complexity of the claim.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Ageas Insurance Limited, all decisions | 3,009 | 40% |
| Home insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 25,670 | 38% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 20,959 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website