Upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against AWP P&C S.A.
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6442668 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against AWP P&C S.A.. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6442668 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | AWP P&C S.A. |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Motor insurance, claim handling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | AWP P&C S.A. must: (1) Accept and pay Mr S's claim in full subject to any relevant excess; (2) Pay 8% simple interest per year from the date of claim decline to the date of payment, with appropriate HMRC documentation if income tax is deducted; (3) Pay £200 compensation for distress and upset caused by the unreasonable claim decline. |
Summary
Mr S claimed for the theft of his electric bike under a bicycle insurance policy. The bike was stolen while Mr S was standing talking to friends with the bike at his feet; he did not intervene because he feared the thief might be carrying a knife. AWP declined the claim on the basis that the bike was unattended and therefore excluded from cover, relying on a policy definition requiring the bike to be 'ridden or held' to satisfy the 'attended' requirement. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that this definition was a significant departure from the normal insurance meaning of 'attended' (direct control and supervision) and should have been highlighted in the IPID but was not. The ombudsman concluded Mr S was attending to his bike in the ordinary sense and it was unreasonable to expect him to physically intervene. AWP was ordered to pay the claim in full plus interest and £200 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that AWP's definition of 'attended' (requiring the bike to be ridden or held) was a significant departure from the normal insurance meaning (direct control and supervision) and therefore constituted a significant term that should have been highlighted in the IPID. AWP's failure to highlight this term in the IPID weakened its ability to rely on it. The ombudsman found Mr S was attending to his bike in the normal sense as it was under his direct control and supervision at his feet. The requirement to physically intervene was unreasonable and unsafe given the circumstances. Even if Mr S had been holding the bike, the thief's confident and casual approach suggested he would have stolen it regardless. The ombudsman concluded it was not fair and reasonable for AWP to decline the claim based on a significant term that was not properly disclosed.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| AWP P&C S.A., all decisions | 240 | 31% |
| Motor insurance, claim handling, all decisions | 12,937 | 32% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 47,449 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website