Upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Red Sands Insurance Company (Europe) Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6467191 of 2026-07-01T00:00:00+00:00. Other regulated complaint complaint against Red Sands Insurance Company (Europe) Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6467191 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Red Sands Insurance Company (Europe) Limited |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | Other regulated complaint |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Red Sands Insurance Company (Europe) Limited must: (1) settle Mr W's claim for the stolen laptop; (2) reimburse Mr W's laptop hire costs from the date of claim decline until one week after claim settlement, with proof of costs required; (3) pay 8% simple per annum interest on reimbursed sums from the date Mr W incurred the cost until settlement. |
Summary
Mr W purchased a contents insurance policy from Red Sands that covered his laptop while away from home. When his laptop was stolen from his car boot, Red Sands declined the claim on the basis that the laptop was not being 'worn or carried' as required by the policy. The ombudsman upheld Mr W's complaint, finding that Red Sands failed to provide clear, fair and not misleading information about the unusually restrictive personal possessions cover, which was narrower than comparable policies on the market. The ombudsman also found the term 'carried' was ambiguous and should be interpreted in favour of Mr W. Red Sands was ordered to settle the claim and reimburse Mr W's laptop hire costs with interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Even in a non-advised sale, the firm has a duty to provide clear, fair and not misleading information, particularly regarding unusual, onerous and restrictive terms. The Red Sands policy's personal possessions cover was significantly more restrictive than comparable policies on the market, limiting cover to items worn or carried, whereas most similar policies offer broader cover for items away from home. This restrictive term was not highlighted in the IPID, making the IPID's statement about coverage misleading. The term 'carried' is also ambiguous and undefined, and ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer. The laptop in the car boot could reasonably be described as being 'carried' by Mr W.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Red Sands Insurance Company (Europe) Limited, all decisions | 1,001 | 49% |
| Other regulated complaint, all decisions | 18,992 | 19% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 21,507 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website