Haven Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6123839

The complaint Mr A has complained that his commercial vehicle insurer, Haven Insurance Company Limited (‘Haven’), turned down a claim he made on his policy and thereafter proceeded to cancel it. What happened In April 2025, Mr A’s van was stolen while he was standing nearby doing some outdoor work. He said the van was parked away from the footpath in an overgrown area under trees where he didn’t expect there would be any passersby. He said he had his keys on the passenger seat as he was in and out of the van getting tools and water and wanted to save time rather than constantly having to unlock it. Mr A said that as he was walking away from the van, thieves unhitched the trailer which was attached to it and climbed into the van and drove off. He said it all happened very quickly and that he reported the matter to the police. He then made a claim under his policy with Haven. Haven reviewed the claim but turned it down and later proceeded to cancel Mr A’s policy. Haven said that Mr A had failed to safeguard his vehicle and that he had left it unlocked and unattended. Haven considered Mr A’s complaint but it didn’t uphold it. It said that Mr A was working 50 feet away from the van while the key was also in the van and therefore didn’t take reasonable care to prevent the theft. It relied on terms in its policy which said that it may cancel the policy and refuse to deal with the claim if the vehicle was left unlocked or reasonable precautions were not taken to protect it. Unhappy with Haven’s response, Mr A brought his complaint to our service. He said losing his van had a great impact on him and that he had to use all his savings and also borrow money to buy a replacement so he could carry on working. He said this cost around £20,000 including having to purchase new tools. He said he was working in an area he considered to be safe and in a site which wasn’t open to the public and parked the van somewhere he didn’t consider would be easy to steal. He added that he was working close to the van and that it wasn’t out of his sight other than when he was working with his back to it. One of our investigators reviewed the complaint and thought Haven should not have proceeded with the cancellation but agreed it didn’t have to cover the claim as he thought Mr A had left the van unlocked and unattended. Our investigator said Haven should remove the cancellation and refund any cancellation fees and any difference in premium caused by the cancellation as well as pay Mr A £150 compensation.

-- 1 of 5 --

Mr A didn’t agree and asked for an ombudsman’s decision. He said he believed he was in a position to intervene and was close enough to the vehicle to do so. He added that it was impractical for him to have kept the van locked at all times bearing in mind he was using it continuously. Mr A provided our investigator with examples of decisions reached by our service in similar complaints which he thought were relevant. Our investigator didn’t change his view and the matter was then passed to me to decide. 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. I’d like to start by saying how sorry I was to hear about the theft of Mr A’s van and the impact this has had on him and his family. The policy Like most commercial vehicle policies, Mr A’s provides cover in the event of loss of or damage to the insured vehicle. Under the relevant section, the policy specifies that there is no cover for, among other things, damage or loss to the vehicle when: a Your Vehicle (including its boot and bonnet) is unlocked; or c The keys (or other form of vehicle entry device) have been left in Your Vehicle; or e You have not taken other reasonable precautions to protect Your Vehicle Under General Conditions it says that Haven may cancel the policy and refuse to deal with a claim if, among other things, the insured does not comply with the general conditions. The policy also states that Haven will only provide insurance if the insured and anybody left in charge of the vehicle have taken all reasonable steps to prevent loss of or damage to it. Haven said the vehicle was left unlocked with the key in the ignition, though Mr A clarified it was on the passenger seat. It added that this and the fact that Mr A was working 50 feet away from the vehicle meant he had failed to safeguard it. Lack of reasonable care I’ll firstly consider whether Mr A failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft. When considering whether a party took reasonable care or reasonable steps to prevent something from happening, the test we apply is one of recklessness. And what this effectively means is whether they recognised there was a risk and took the risk anyway or took no steps to mitigate it. In this case, Mr A said he considered the area that he was working in to be very quiet and safe. He also said it was on the grounds of a training centre with a number of staff constantly walking around the perimeter. He added that he was constantly in and out of the van and considered any risk of it being stolen to be minimal. I think this indicates that Mr A didn’t

-- 2 of 5 --

consider there was any risk of the van being stolen from where it was parked, which would indicate there was no recklessness on his part. Furthermore, Mr A added that he parked the van away from the footpath and under a tree and close to nettles which he considered to be a barrier to anyone approaching the van. I think this indicates that even if Mr A thought there was a low risk of the van being stolen, he took what he considered to be reasonable steps to deter anyone from stealing it. Again, I don’t think this indicates recklessness as, even with what he considered to be a minimal risk, Mr A took steps he considered to be adequate to prevent the theft. In light of the above, on balance, I don’t think there was a failure on Mr A’s part to take reasonable care to protect his vehicle. I think the steps he took and his assessment of the situation don’t indicate that there was any recklessness on his part. Leaving the van unlocked and leaving the keys in the vehicle In its final response letter, Haven cited a term which requires the van not to be left unlocked but it also mentioned Mr A leaving the keys in the van as an additional reason as to why it repudiated the claim and cancelled the policy. Mr A accepts that the van was unlocked and that the keys were in the van when it was stolen. He said this was because he was constantly in and out of the van, getting his tools etc. and it was easier to leave it unlocked. What I need to consider here is whether the van was left unattended and whether leaving the keys in the van made a material difference to whether the van was stolen or not. For a van, or any item, not to be considered unattended, I must be satisfied that the insured was in a position to see any attempt to interfere with it and had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the theft. Mr A said he didn’t consider that the van had been left unattended because he was close by and had it in his sight. He provided photographs showing where the van was parked and where he was standing in relation to it at the time of the theft. It isn’t possible to say exactly how far away Mr A was from the van when it was stolen. But it seems it was several metres bearing in mind there was a large patch of grass and a footpath separating them. So Mr A would have had to walk/run several metres to get to the van in order to prevent the theft. I think this suggests that he wouldn’t have, on balance, had a reasonable chance of deterring the thieves. Mr A also said that at times he had his back to the van so it wasn’t always in his sight. For these reasons, on balance, I think the van was left unattended. I have gone on to consider whether it was reasonable for Haven to rely on the fact that the van was unlocked with the keys in it to refuse the claim and I think it was. I think it is more likely than not that the fact that the van was unlocked with the keys inside made the theft possible. On balance, I think if the van had been locked and the keys were with Mr A it is unlikely the theft would have taken place. I say this because Mr A said everything happened within a matter of seconds, as soon as he’d turned his back to the van. If the thieves had to gain entry into a locked van and then attempt to start it without a key I think it’s unlikely they would have managed to drive away so quickly if at all and I also think there would have been

-- 3 of 5 --

a better chance of stopping them. Also it’s likely that they had been watching Mr A and knew the van was unlocked and decided to proceed when he had his back to it. If the van had been locked they may have been deterred from attempting to steal it. For completeness I will add that I have considered Haven’s Insurance Product Information Document and the exclusion which relates to the keys being left in or on the van is one of the exclusions highlighted and marked with a red x. So I think Haven did enough to bring this exclusion to Mr A’s attention. Did Haven act fairly and reasonably in repudiating the claim and cancelling the policy? Bearing in mind that I thought Mr A left the van unattended with the keys in it, I think it was fair and reasonable and in line with the policy terms for Haven to repudiate the claim. Nevertheless, I don’t consider it was fair and reasonable for it to cancel the policy. Under General Conditions, Haven will only provide cover if, among other things, the insured and anybody left in charge of the vehicle have taken all reasonable steps to prevent loss or damage to it. As I don’t think Mr A failed to take reasonable care I don’t think it was fair and reasonable for Haven to cancel the policy. So I think it now needs to take steps to put Mr A back in the position he would have been in, had this not happened. This includes removing any record of the cancellation and refunding any administration and cancellation fees Mr A was charged by Haven and his broker who may have also charged its own fees. I think Haven should also pay Mr A the difference between his Haven premium and his new premium which he paid to his new insurer which was based on the fact that he had a cancellation on his record; something which likely increased his premium. I am asking Haven to pay the difference rather than having Mr A’s new insurer recalculate the premium once the cancellation is removed, because I expect Mr A’s search for a new insurer would have been restricted, with some insurers not wishing to provide a quote due to the cancellation. So, cheaper quotes may have been available had he not had to declare the cancellation. In addition to the above, I think Haven must pay Mr A £150 for the distress and inconvenience it caused him. Mr A said he had to take out insurance elsewhere and that his premium has increased due to having a cancellation on his record. I think this would have caused him distress and inconvenience and I think £150 is in line with awards we make in similar circumstances. My final decision For the reasons above I have decided to uphold this complaint. Haven Insurance Company Limited must: • Remove any record of the cancellation from internal and external databases. • Refund any cancellation and administration fees Mr A was charged by it and his broker plus 8% simple interest per year from the date they were charged to the date it pays him. • Pay any difference between Mr A’s premium and the premium he paid for his new policy which was based on him having a cancellation on his record. This is subject to Mr A

-- 4 of 5 --

providing evidence in support. It must add 8% simple interest per year on the amount it pays Mr A from the date he paid his new premium to the date it pays him. • Provide a letter confirming that the cancellation was made in error and also confirming if any difference in premium has been paid (as above). • Pay Mr A £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused him. Haven Insurance Company Limited must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it Mr A accepts my final decision. If it pays later than this it must also pay interest on it from the deadline date for settlement to the date of payment at 8% a year simple. If Haven Insurance Company Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr A how much it’s taken off. It should also give Mr A a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Anastasia Serdari Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --