AXA Insurance UK Plc · DRN-5972159

The complaint Mr L complains about AXA Insurance UK Plc’s decision to decline a claim under a home insurance policy. Mr L has been largely represented by his father, Mr W, and his broker, P, in this complaint. But for ease of reference, I shall refer to anything Mr L’s representatives said on Mr L’s behalf to have been said by Mr L. What happened Mr L had a home insurance policy with AXA. In January 2025, he made a claim for the theft of seven bikes (the bikes), from the shed at the back of his garden. AXA asked Mr L for information to validate the claim, including evidence of ownership of the bikes. Mr L said the bikes were purchased by his father, Mr W, more than 20 years ago, in cash, and gifted to him more recently. After AXA visited Mr L to obtain a statement, and received the police report, it declined the claim in May 2025. It said Mr L hadn’t been able to evidence ownership of the bikes. Mr L complained to AXA in June 2025. He said he’d provided photos of the bikes, along with details of the original seller (of six of the bikes) and the seller’s confirmation of the purchase by Mr W. Mr L felt on balance, he’d proven ownership of the bikes. AXA issued a complaint response in July 2025. It maintained it hadn’t received sufficient evidence to confirm Mr L’s ownership at the time of the loss. It didn’t uphold the complaint. Mr L referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He said AXA hadn’t considered all his evidence overall, and that just because he couldn’t provide receipts, this didn’t disprove ownership. He said AXA should accept and pay the claim. The Investigator didn’t recommend the complaint be upheld. He said the terms required Mr L to sufficiently prove ownership, and it was fair for AXA to say this hadn’t been proven in the circumstances. So they said it was fair for AXA to decline the claim. Mr L didn’t agree. He felt he’d provided enough evidence, including details of the original seller for six of the seven bikes. He didn’t think he should be required to provide conclusive proof. Because the complaint couldn’t be resolved, it’s been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Mr L has provided a lot of information in support of his complaint. I assure Mr L that I’ve taken everything he’s provided into account. But in this decision I’ve focused on what I think

-- 1 of 3 --

are the key issues in this complaint. No discourtesy is intended by this, but it simply reflects the informal nature of the way that the Financial Ombudsman Service reviews complaints. My role isn’t to decide Mr L’s claim or decide whether or not the loss of items Mr L said he owned, occurred in the way he said. Instead, my role is to decide whether AXA acted fairly and reasonably in deciding the claim. And in doing so, I’ve considered the information AXA was given. Mr L’s policy sets out the conditions that apply in the event of a claim. Amongst other things, it says: “Proof of your claim and its value…It is your responsibility to prove any claim. To help prove your claim we may require you to provide original purchase receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements…photographs…or other documents we may reasonably require.” I don’t consider the above to be unusual. Most home insurance policies contain similar conditions. Nor is there anything inherently unfair or unreasonable about this condition – I think it’s reasonable to expect a policyholder to prove they owned the items they are claiming for, along with its value. Ultimately, it’s the policyholder’s responsibility to show they’ve suffered a loss. So I think AXA was entitled to rely on this condition. But I’ve considered whether it did so fairly. The terms do say AXA may require Mr L to provide a receipt, invoice, or other proof of payment. But we take the view that it’s not always reasonable to require this. As in this case, it may be that this didn’t apply to a cash purchase made a long time ago. So I’ve considered whether there’s other clear evidence Mr L owned the bikes. AXA showed a willingness to consider other evidence of purchase by Mr W, and the subsequent ownership by Mr L. Mr L provided digital photos, of hard copy photos, of the bikes, taken years ago (prior to Mr L’s ownership) by Mr W, at Mr W’s storage unit. I consider these were photos taken well before Mr L said he’d been given them, at a location away from Mr L’s address. And as they weren’t direct digital photos of the bikes themselves (they were photos of a photo), they wouldn’t contain the usual digital metadata from the time the original photo was taken. And in these circumstances, I don’t think it was unreasonable for AXA to want to see more proof of ownership than this. Mr L provided a statement from the original seller, who confirmed via email Mr W bought six or seven bikes from him, likely in cash, without any receipt, as the parties knew each other. Given the seller was personally known to Mr W, AXA said it couldn’t verify the seller’s credibility. And in the circumstances, I don’t consider it was unfair for AXA to say this, along with the pictures, wasn’t sufficient to show Mr L owned the bikes at the time of the loss. I’ve also considered that Mr L’s broker called AXA in May 2024, to check whether the seven bikes, as part of Mr L’s collection, would be covered. But I’m not satisfied this, even in conjunction with the above, and the other available evidence, was sufficient to prove Mr L’s ownership at the time of the loss. I say this because it’s still entirely possible to specify an item (or show an intention to specify an item) under an insurance policy, regardless of whether the items were actually owned by the insured. Overall, for the reasons outlined above, I don’t consider AXA acted unfairly in declining the claim, on the basis it didn’t have enough information, to confirm Mr L’s ownership at the time of the loss. So I won’t direct AXA to do anything else. Finally, I’ve considered Mr L’s concerns about the time AXA took to decide the claim. Given

-- 2 of 3 --

AXA had valid concerns about the information needed to validate the claim, I don’t consider it acted unreasonably in investigating further and obtaining the relevant information. I can see Mr L provided the relevant crime reference towards the end of January 2025. AXA then arranged a visit for Mr L’s statement, and requested the police report, which it received around May 2025. It was then in May 2025 that AXA communicated its decision. So overall, in the circumstances, I don’t consider AXA took an unreasonable amount of time to investigate and decide the claim. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Monjur Alam Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --