AXA Insurance UK Plc · DRN-6187333

The complaint Mr L and Mrs L are unhappy AXA Insurance UK Plc has refused to meet a claim they made on a commercial buildings insurance policy after a fire at their property. Instead, it avoided the policy and returned premiums that had been paid since November 2023. What happened The details of the complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them in full again here. Instead, I’ll provide focus on providing my reasons for my decision. 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 agree with the conclusions reached by the Investigator that the complaint should not be upheld. I do so for the following reasons: • It isn’t in dispute incorrect information was given to AXA when the policy was set up. Mr L and Mrs L accept the application made for the policy in 2020 incorrectly stated the property type was a house instead of declaring that it had been converted into separate flats. This was also listed on renewal information provided each year with a reminder to contact AXA if the information was incorrect and this did not happen. • The relevant legislation here is the Insurance Act 2015. Under the Act Mr L and Mrs L had a duty to make a fair presentation of the risk they were asking AXA to cover. Due to the wrong property type being incorrectly selected, I’m satisfied that duty was breached. • AXA have shown that for the type of policy Mr L and Mrs L had, if the details had been correct, it would have offered the policy on different terms from 2020 to 2022. However, it stopped offering cover for flats in 2022, so it would have declined to offer renewal of the policy in 2023. On this basis, AXA is able to have a remedy against Mr L and Mrs L for a qualifying breach under the Insurance Act. • As AXA has shown it would have done something differently had it known the correct information, I’m satisfied the breach would be classed as a qualifying breach. The application information was submitted to AXA on behalf of Mr L and Mrs L, and because of this AXA has treated the breach as careless. I think that is reasonable as it recognises, they didn’t intend for the incorrect information to be provided. • AXA has avoided the policy and returned to Mr L and Mrs L the premiums they have paid for the policy since 2023. I’m satisfied this is in line with the remedy available to it under the Insurance Act. • I appreciate Mr L and Mrs L discovered that under a different product line AXA may have offered cover for their property. They think it is harsh that AXA have avoided the

-- 1 of 2 --

policy instead of dealing with their claim under the terms of a different product. However, any other product line would be considered a separate contract. The Insurance Act refers to the contract that was entered into between the parties. As AXA has shown it wouldn’t have entered that contract it is entitled to treat it as if it didn’t exist. There is no requirement for AXA to search across its portfolio of products for other cover it may have provided. • If Mr L and Mrs L are unhappy about the information that was provided to AXA when making the policy application, then they will need to take that up with the appropriate party. AXA set up the policy based on the information that was provided to it, so it hasn’t done anything wrong here or has it acted unfairly. For the reasons above, I do not uphold this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold Mr L and Mrs L’s complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L and Mrs L to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Alison Gore Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --