Thieves stole car keys from my windowsill - and insurer says it's my fault

I have recently received an influx of complaints from consumers who had insurance claims denied after their car was stolen.

In each case, the provider relied on an exclusion clause within its terms and conditions.

Atif, from Slough, Berks, contacted me on my LBC radio show, The Consumer Hour.

He had ­advertised his vehicle for sale and met the potential buyer outside a local train station.

The buyer asked if he could sit in the driver’s seat and rev the engine, as he thought he had heard a strange noise from the engine – but as soon as he got in the car, he swiftly drove off.

The insurance provider denied Atif’s claim, citing an exclusion clause in its terms was engaged because he had left the keys in the ignition.

One claim was denied after the crook drove off in the person's car while they had the keys in the ignition (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

And Sunday People reader Kate, from Bromley, South East London, left the keys to her Range Rover on the windowsill by her front door.

One night, thieves smashed the window and stole her car.

The insurance provider denied Kate’s claim and cited its exclusion clause stating she had failed to take “reasonable care” of the vehicle.

Many more readers have contacted me with similar stories.

Personally, I think that if an insurance provider wants to rely on an exclusion clause within its terms and conditions, it must be able to demonstrate that was clearly highlighted when the policy was sold to the consumer.

The Financial Ombudsman says it considers these exclusion clauses to be “significant” as they would influence purchasing decisions.

Even where there is a valid ­exclusion clause, the facts of each case need to be examined and providers must consider what is reasonable.

In Atif’s case, for ­example, was it reasonable for him to leave the keys in the ignition with the engine running while ­allowing a stranger to sit in the car unaccompanied?

If it had occurred on private land you might say it was reasonable but on a public highway, it may sway towards the insurers’ favour.

And in Kate’s case, was it obvious that the chance of her car being stolen was increased by leaving the keys in plain sight?

If yes, it is fair for the insurance provider to claim she failed to take reasonable care of the car.