Ageas Insurance Limited · DRN-6239415

The complaint Mr D and Mr A complain that Ageas Insurance Limited voided their motor insurance policy and declined a claim after the insured vehicle was damaged and later scrapped. Mr D was the policyholder. Mr A was the named driver. Ms Y has brought the complaint on their behalf. What happened In January 2024, a motor insurance policy was taken out with Ageas through a comparison site. The policy was in Mr D’s name. The information given at the point of sale recorded Mr D as the vehicle’s owner and registered keeper, and Mr A as the named driver. When the policy renewed in January 2025, Ageas sent Mr D a statement of fact asking him to check the information held and confirm it was correct. This again showed Mr D as the owner and registered keeper and Mr A as the named driver. In June 2025, the vehicle was damaged while Mr A was driving and a claim was made. Ageas arranged for the vehicle to be collected and reviewed by an engineer. In early July 2025, its engineer concluded the damage was severe enough for the vehicle to be treated as a Category B total loss. While dealing with the claim, Ageas became concerned about information it had been given in respect of the vehicle. It said it had established that Mr D wasn’t the registered keeper, and the vehicle had been purchased on finance in Mr A’s name. Ageas concluded Mr A and Mr D hadn’t taken reasonable care to give accurate information at the point of sale and renewal. It treated this as a careless qualifying misrepresentation under the relevant law. It explained that it wouldn’t have offered the policy at all if it had known the correct information, so it voided the policy, declined the claim, and returned the premiums paid. Ms Y complained. She said this outcome was unfair on Mr A because it left him without a vehicle and still liable for the finance. Ageas didn’t uphold the complaint and maintained that it had acted fairly. Ageas later arranged for the vehicle to be scrapped and paid the salvage amount to the finance company. Ms Y referred the complaint to our Service. Our Investigator didn’t uphold it. He thought Ageas had acted in line with the relevant law in concluding that there had been a qualifying misrepresentation, and he didn’t think Ageas had acted unfairly in scrapping the vehicle. Ms Y didn’t agree. She said she knew of another policy set up in a similar way, so she didn’t accept that Ageas wouldn’t have offered cover at all. She also said Ageas hadn’t inspected the vehicle properly before deciding it was a Category B write-off, and that it was unfair to scrap the vehicle after voiding the policy when Ageas knew there was outstanding finance. As the matter remained unresolved, it’s come to me for a final decision.

-- 1 of 4 --

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. Having done so, I’ve decided not to uphold the complaint. I appreciate this will be upsetting for the family, and Mr A in particular who’s facing the outstanding finance. But, based on the evidence I’ve seen, I’m not persuaded Ageas acted unfairly or unreasonably in voiding the policy or in how it handled things after that. I’ve explained my reasons below, focusing on what I consider most relevant to my decision. If I haven’t commented on a particular point or piece of evidence, it’s not because I haven’t thought about it. Rather, it doesn’t change what I consider to be the right outcome. Misrepresentation The relevant law here is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA). This requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when taking out or renewing a consumer insurance policy. The standard of care is that of a reasonable consumer. If a consumer fails to take reasonable care, CIDRA allows the insurer to take certain actions as long as the misrepresentation is what CIDRA describes as “qualifying”. For a misrepresentation to be qualifying, the insurer has to show it would’ve offered the policy on different terms or wouldn’t have offered it at all if it had received the right information. CIDRA sets out a number of considerations for deciding whether a consumer failed to take reasonable care. And the actions available to the insurer depend on whether the misrepresentation was careless, reckless, or deliberate. Ageas says incorrect information was given about who owned the vehicle and who was its registered keeper. It has provided evidence from the comparison site showing Mr D was declared to be both the owner and keeper. It’s also provided the 2025 renewal statement of fact which lists Mr D as the owner and keeper and asked him to check that information carefully and correct anything that’s wrong. Ageas has also provided the V5C for the insured vehicle, which shows Mr A was the registered keeper, and the vehicle was bought on finance in Mr A’s name. In those circumstances, I’m satisfied Ageas was provided was incorrect information. I’ve then thought about reasonable care. Ageas’s records indicate Mr D said he hadn’t realised the policy had been set up in that way. The records also mention Mr D facing some difficult personal circumstances and a bereavement some years earlier. I’ve taken that into account. But I haven’t seen a clear and persuasive explanation for why the policy was set up in that way. And, crucially, as the claim took place in the second policy year, I haven’t seen an explanation for why the details weren’t corrected after Ageas sent the statement of fact asking Mr D to check that all the details were correct. So, even allowing for the explanations offered, I think it was fair for Ageas to conclude that reasonable care wasn’t taken. I then need to consider whether the misrepresentation was qualifying – in other words, would Ageas have done something different if it had been given the correct information?

-- 2 of 4 --

Ageas has provided underwriting evidence which confirms it wouldn’t have offered the policy in Mr D’s name at all if Mr A had been disclosed as the registered keeper. While I can’t go into more detail than that because Ageas’s underwriting evidence is commercially sensitive, I’m satisfied it’s appropriate for me to rely on that evidence to determine what Ageas would’ve done. I’ve considered Ms Y’s point that she’s aware of another policy that was set up in a similar way and accepted. But I haven’t seen evidence to show that policy was with the same insurer, the same product, the same underwriting scheme, and the same facts. So, the point doesn’t persuade me that Ageas’s evidence is wrong. Overall, I’m satisfied Ageas has shown it wouldn’t have offered the policy if it had known the correct information. So, I’m satisfied the misrepresentation was qualifying. Ageas says the misrepresentation was careless rather than reckless or deliberate. I accept that, and Ageas hasn’t argued otherwise. Under CIDRA, where an insurer shows that there’s been a careless qualifying misrepresentation, and it wouldn’t have offered the policy at all, the insurer is allowed to void the policy, refuse all claims, and return the premiums. That’s what Ageas has done here. And, as CIDRA reflects our Service’s long-established approach to cases like this, I’m satisfied it’s fair and reasonable for Ageas to rely on CIDRA in the circumstances of this complaint to take the actions that it has. Claims handling I’ve considered Ms Y’s concerns about the way Ageas handled the claim, in particular its decision to treat the vehicle as a Category B total loss and have it scrapped. I should explain that assigning a category to vehicle accident damage is a matter of professional judgement. Ageas has provided evidence that an engineer reviewed photos of the vehicle and concluded that the damage was severe enough for it to be classed as Category B. Ageas says the front axle was snapped and there was significant damage to the surrounding area. Having looked at the photos and the information available to me, I haven’t seen enough to say that this assessment was obviously wrong or unreasonable. I accept the engineer didn’t physically inspect the vehicle. But a physical inspection isn’t always necessary. An engineer can, depending on the circumstances, make a professional judgement from photos and other information available to them. In the circumstances, I can’t say Ageas acted unreasonably by relying on their engineer’s assessment. I’ve also considered whether it was unfair for Ageas to scrap the vehicle after it had voided the policy. I recognise Ms Y says that this was unfair and deprived the family of the chance to repair the car. But a Category B total loss means the vehicle is not allowed to be repaired and cannot legally return to the road. Given that, and the extent of damage involved, I’m not persuaded Ageas acted unreasonably in deciding not to scrap the vehicle. I acknowledge there was finance outstanding. This understandably made the situation more difficult for Mr A. But I’m not persuaded that alone made scrapping the vehicle unreasonable. The finance company had an interest in the vehicle, and I haven’t seen enough evidence to show that Ageas acted unfairly in paying the salvage amount to that company. I also note Ageas incurred over £1,000 of storage costs which it has agreed to write off rather than pursuing the family for.

-- 3 of 4 --

I do appreciate this outcome will be upsetting for the family. But, taking everything together, I haven’t seen enough evidence to conclude that Ageas handled the claim unfairly or unreasonably. So, I’m not requiring Ageas to do anything further in respect of this complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given, I do not uphold Mr D and Mr A’s complaint about Ageas Insurance Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A and Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Chris Woolaway Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --