A London couple who had their £6,000 burglary claim turned down by their insurer LV= because they didn’t have a burglar alarm are to have their claim paid, after the Financial Ombudsman Service ruled they were treated unfairly.
In May, Guardian Money featured the case of Gemma and Mark Hall* who had been LV= customers for more than a decade, but found their burglary claim refused because, unbeknown to them, LV= had five years earlier made an alarm a condition of cover – a fact they said was buried in the small print.
The pair, both doctors living in Muswell Hill, had never had a working alarm at their home and said they had been clear about that when they first bought their home and contents cover from LV= in 2005 for about £350. Each year since they had happily renewed the policy by direct debit.
But when they had to claim for computers and some jewellery, they were astonished to be told that it would not be paid. LV= argued that on the 2010 and 2011 renewal letters it sent them, it stated: “Please check your new quote carefully as the conditions quoted may differ from your existing insurance.” Within the documents, several pages in, the need for the alarm was noted, but went unseen by the pair.
In June 2015, LV= added a covering letter: “Check the documents enclosed – we’ve added security clauses to your policy, please see your renewal quote.”
But the couple said that was hardly a clear message that an alarm had become necessary, and had LV= simply said they needed one they would have taken the appropriate action. Money thought they had a strong argument and that this was a case of an insurer using a technicality to avoid paying out. A few weeks ago the FOS agreed. It has told LV= to pay up.
An LV= spokesperson said: “Treating customers fairly is extremely important to us and we regularly review the way we work to ensure this. In this case, while we believe that we made the need for a working alarm clear in our annual renewal letters, we have taken into consideration that they may not have realised there had been this change to their policy. We are very sorry for any upset or inconvenience our initial decision may have caused and glad that we’ve now been able to reach an agreement with them and the FOS to settle their claim.”
*Not their real names
