Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6061188

The complaint Mr S complains about Aviva Insurance Limited’s (Aviva) decision to decline a claim made under a home insurance policy, and to avoid his home insurance policies. What happened Mr S took out a home insurance policy with Aviva, in September 2023 (inception). He renewed the policy in September 2024 (renewal), and submitted a change of insured address in January 2025 (the mid-term adjustment, or ‘MTA’). This was all through a broker. In June 2025, following a burglary, Mr S claimed for stolen jewellery and other possessions. Aviva declined the claim and avoided Mr S’s policies from 2023 and 2024 (the policies), as it said he hadn’t disclosed his wife’s (who I’ll refer to as ‘Mrs S’) previous bankruptcy. And it wouldn’t have provided the policies had he done so. It agreed to refund the policy premiums. Mr S complained to Aviva. He said he acted honestly and with reasonable care at all times, and any failings were down to Aviva or his broker. He said he had no knowledge of Mrs S’s bankruptcy until around October/November 2024. Aviva issued a complaint response in October 2025. It maintained its decision to avoid Mr S’s policies and refund the premiums he paid. Mr S referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He said he met Mrs S after her bankruptcy and was not aware of it at inception (2023) or renewal (2024). He also said at the point of the MTA, Mrs S wasn’t living with him, so the information was correct then. He wanted Aviva to reinstate the policy and pay the claim, along with compensation. The Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said it was fair for Aviva to say Mr S should have asked Mrs S about her bankruptcy at inception and renewal. And they didn’t consider the evidence about Mrs S’s residency during the MTA, was sufficient. Overall, they said Aviva acted fairly in declining Mr S’s claim and avoiding the policies. Mr S didn’t agree. He said the impact of Aviva’s actions was severe. And he felt Aviva’s actions deprived him of the opportunity to provide correct information and if needed, arrange alternative insurance elsewhere. 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 S has provided a lot of information in support of his complaint. I assure Mr S that I’ve taken everything he’s provided into account. But in this decision I’ve focused on what I think 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. I also need to make clear that this decision only relates to the actions of Aviva. Mr S has raised concerns about the actions of the broker. But from what I’ve seen, the broker sold and

-- 1 of 3 --

arranged the policies on Mr S’s behalf. I can’t hold Aviva responsible for anything the broker did where it was acting on behalf of Mr S. And I consider it was acting on Mr S’s behalf regarding the concerns he’s raised. Aviva said Mr S should have declared Mrs S’s bankruptcy at inception or renewal. And it says it wouldn’t have provided cover had he done so. The relevant law in this case is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Misrepresentation) Act 2012 (CIDRA). This requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when taking out a consumer insurance contract. The standard of care is that of a reasonable consumer. And if a consumer fails to do this, the insurer has certain remedies provided the misrepresentation is – what CIDRA describes as – a qualifying misrepresentation. For it to be a qualifying misrepresentation the insurer has to show it would have offered the policy on different terms, or not at all, if the consumer hadn’t made the misrepresentation. CIDRA sets out a number of considerations for deciding whether the consumer failed to take reasonable care. One of these is how clear and specific the insurer’s questions were. And the remedy available to the insurer under CIDRA depends on whether the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, or careless. If the misrepresentation was reckless or deliberate and an insurer can show it would have at least offered the policy on different terms, it’s entitled to avoid the consumer’s policy. If the misrepresentation was careless, then to avoid the policy, the insurer must show it would not have offered the policy at all if it wasn’t for the misrepresentation. If the insurer is entitled to avoid the policy, it means it will not have to deal with any claims under it. I’ve considered what happened in this case. It’s important to set out that each renewal of an insurance policy is a new application. So there is a responsibility upon the policyholder to take reasonable steps to not misrepresent at each renewal too. In this case, Mr S failed to disclose Mrs S’s bankruptcy when the policy was taken out and when it renewed. I’ve looked at the policy schedules that were sent out. They said: “You have declared that you and your family living with you…have never been declared bankrupt, been subject to bankruptcy proceedings…” along with confirmation this declaration was “true”. I’ve reviewed the above and I think it’s clear Aviva wanted to know if anyone living with Mr S had ever been declared bankrupt. Aviva said Mrs S was declared bankrupt in September 2019. Mr S acknowledges this but says he was only aware of this fact, in around October/November 2024. But as I’ve outlined, CIDRA sets out that Mr S needed to take reasonable care not to misrepresent. So the issue I have to decide is whether Mr S didn’t take reasonable care in not disclosing Mrs S’s bankruptcy. Mr S said he wasn’t aware of Mrs S’s bankruptcy at inception or renewal. But given the clear nature of the declaration outlined in the policy schedules, I agree with Aviva that a reasonable consumer, in the same circumstances, would have understood the question extended to their spouse (who they live with), and would check with their spouse to make sure the information was correct. It follows that in the circumstances; I don’t think Mr S took reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation at inception and renewal. Mr S raised concerns about what he was and wasn’t asked by the broker, and we’re looking into this

-- 2 of 3 --

under a separate complaint. But Aviva isn’t liable for what the broker did, or didn’t do, on Mr S’s behalf. Aviva was entitled to rely on the information provided being accurate. I’ve gone on to consider the evidence Aviva provided, to show what it would have done if there hadn’t been a misrepresentation. And I’m satisfied, based on what I’ve seen, that Aviva wouldn’t have offered the policies to Mr S at inception or renewal. So I consider it reasonable to say there’s been a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA. The remedy available to Aviva (for both policies), depends on whether the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate, reckless or careless. In refunding Mr S’s premiums, Aviva treated the misrepresentation as careless. I think this is fair. But as outlined above, CIDRA sets out Aviva can avoid the policies, if it can show it wouldn’t have offered them at all, if it wasn’t for the misrepresentation. Aviva has provided me with confidential, business sensitive information to explain how it assesses risk. And I’m satisfied from this, that it wouldn’t have offered the policies to Mr S, had he declared Mrs S’s bankruptcy. Mr S raised concerns about the MTA in January 2025, given that the declaration about bankruptcy didn’t cover Mrs S, as she wasn’t living with him then. But I’ve explained above why Aviva had the ability, under CIDRA, to avoid that policy, from the point of renewal. In any case, I note Mr S has been contradictory in his testimony on this. He initially said if he’d been asked directly about the bankruptcy of any resident during the MTA, he would have confirmed Mrs S’s bankruptcy (and sought cover elsewhere). He then said Mrs S wasn’t living with him at the time, so there was no bankruptcy to declare. So even if I consider the MTA impacted on Aviva’s right to avoid the renewed policy, which I don’t, I wouldn’t consider Mr S’s testimony, and associated evidence, to be persuasive in the circumstances. I appreciate the impact this is likely to have on Mr S, and I have a lot of sympathy for him in his circumstances. But, for the reasons outlined above, I consider Aviva acted fairly in avoiding Mr S’s policies. In doing so, the policies are treated as null and void, and Aviva isn’t required to cover Mr S’s 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 S to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Monjur Alam Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --