Lloyds Bank General Insurance Limited · DRN-5905833

The complaint Mr G complains that Lloyds Bank General Insurance Limited unfairly declined a claim he made on his home insurance policy. What happened Mr G had a home insurance policy with Lloyds, which included cover for personal belongings away from his home. In November 2024, Mr G said he lost valuable personal belongings while abroad for a family wedding. This included watches, along with gold and diamond jewellery and a headset (the valuables). He said he’d left them behind in a hotel room. Mr G made a claim with Lloyds in December 2024. In June 2025, Lloyds declined Mr G’s claim. It said there were inconsistencies in what Mr G said about the loss, and he hadn’t reported all the items he claimed for, as missing. It also said Mr G hadn’t attempted to report the loss to the Police in the city of the loss, or in the city where the loss was discovered. Because Mr G was unhappy, Lloyds issued a complaint response in July 2025. It maintained its decision to decline the claim, as it was unable to validate the circumstances. But it paid Mr G £150 in acknowledgement of the time taken to reach the claim decision. Mr G referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He said Lloyds had overlooked his reasoning and circumstances. The Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said Lloyds had acted reasonably in declining the claim and the £150 compensation it paid was fair. Because Mr G didn’t agree, the complaint has been 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. Mr G has provided a lot of information in support of his complaint. I assure Mr G 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 should first set out that it’s not my role to decide whether the valuables were lost, or stolen, in the way Mr G has said. My role is to consider whether I think Lloyds has decided the claim fairly, given the concerns it has. I think it has, and I’ll explain why. Lloyds said Mr G originally reported only a watch missing, to the hotel where the loss occurred. This is supported by the evidence, which shows Mr G told the hotel he left a watch and a headset. Given that Mr G then claimed for a total of 13 items, including various gold and diamond jewellery, I consider Lloyds’s concerns to be reasonable in the circumstances. Mr G said he didn’t want the hotel to know the true value of the pouch containing the items, but I consider it likely the hotel would have to look inside any pouch it found in the room, to

-- 1 of 2 --

determine the contents. So I don’t consider Mr G’s explanation to be reasonable. I also agree with Lloyds, that Mr G ought to have followed up with the hotel, to report all the items missing, after it had responded to confirm nothing was found. Lloyds also said Mr G hadn’t specified the watch that was missing, when he reported this originally to the hotel. Again, this is supported by the evidence, which shows he only mentioned a watch, without mentioning any further details about it. And Mr G had a number of valuable watches, some of which weren’t specified or insured under the policy. And in these circumstances, I think it’s reasonable for Lloyds to have concerns about the lack of evidence, to substantiate the identity or value of the item that was originally reported as lost. Lloyds also pointed out that Mr G didn’t make any attempt to report the loss to the local Police. Given Mr G’s testimony, I’m satisfied it was fair to treat the valuables as stolen. And the terms require Mr G to report any such loss and obtain a crime reference. Mr G said he didn’t make a report in the city of the loss at the time, as he didn’t realise the loss until he’d travelled to the next city and hotel. I think this is reasonable. Mr G said he didn’t attempt to report the loss in this next city either, as he was overwhelmed. I don’t consider this reasonable, as the evidence shows he was able to contact the original hotel to report the loss. And I think Mr G ought to have attempted to contact the local Police in the original city, to report the loss, while he was still abroad. So overall, I consider its concerns about the lack of a Police report to be reasonable. Overall, taking all the above into account, I’m satisfied Lloyds had fair concerns about the validity of Mr G’s claim. I’ve considered Mr G’s reasoning, but for the reasons outlined above, I can’t reasonably say Lloyds’s concern surrounding this claim, was unfair. So I don’t think it acted unfairly, and I won’t therefore interfere with its decision not to cover this claim. I think Lloyds took an unreasonable amount of time to decide the claim, and I accept this would’ve caused Mr G some distress and inconvenience. But I consider the £150 Lloyds paid Mr G, to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. So I won’t direct it to do more. 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 G to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Monjur Alam Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --