Astrenska Insurance Limited · DRN-6037804

The complaint Mr H is unhappy with the decision by Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance following a claim under his gadget insurance policy for loss of his phone. Astrenska is the underwriter of this policy. Astrenska has accepted it is accountable for the actions of agents involved in the claim. In my decision, any reference to a business instructed during the claims process includes Astrenska. What happened The facts of Mr H’s claim are well known to be parties. So, I haven’t repeated them in detail here. Mr H complained to Astrenska after it declined to pay for his claim for the loss of his phone. Astrenska considered Mr H’s complaint but didn’t offer to do anything in settlement of it. Mr H was unhappy with this decision, and so brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service for investigation. The Investigator found that Astrenska had acted fairly in reaching its decision on Mr H’s claim. Mr H didn’t agree with the Investigator’s findings. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved it has been passed to me for 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. I’d like to reassure the parties that although I’ve only summarised the background to this complaint, so not everything that has happened or been argued is set out above, I’ve read and considered everything that has been provided. Mr H says Astrenska has unreasonably declined cover for his lost phone when he has provided all the evidence requested. Astrenska say it needs to see evidence of Mr H’s phone in ‘lost mode’ and verify this with its system checks before further considering the claim. My role isn’t to assess the technical validity of what Mr H has said, or the likelihood of it having happened. It’s to assess the reasonableness of Astrenska’s actions. I’ve also noted Astrenska hasn’t declined Mr H’s claim, rather it has closed it pending further evidence and information it has requested. Looking at what has been requested, I’ve concluded the steps are reasonable. As both sides know the full details and circumstances surrounding this case, I won’t go over all the finer details here. It's not disputed that Mr H has complied with all of Astrenska’s requests to date apart from one. The outstanding requirement relates to Mr H placing his phone in ‘lost mode.’ Astrenska says it has searched for Mr H’s phone using the IMEI number. As it stands, the relevant app that controls the mode in question is showing as ‘activated’ and not in ‘lost mode.’ Astrenska says when a device goes into lost mode, this change is reflected in the

-- 1 of 2 --

search is carries out using the device’s IMEI number. We’d expect an insurer to investigate a claim to ensure that the policy terms have been met before any decision to pay the claim is made. In this case I accept Mr H’s point about the policy terms not specifying the requirement to place a phone in ‘lost mode’ when making a loss claim. I’ve carefully considered what this means for Mr H’s claim. And having done so, I’m persuaded even in the absence of this being a term in the policy, this requirement is reasonable and proportionate, and in line with what we’d expect for a claim of this type. I haven’t seen any compelling or credible evidence from Mr H to answer Astrenska’s concerns about the device showing as ‘activated’ instead of ‘lost’ as you’d expect in a claim of this type. So, I think its decision to decline the claim until further information is provided to consider the claim is fair. I understand Mr H’s strength of feeling about this matter which is very clear from his correspondence with us and Astrenska. As I understand it, when a device like Mr H’s is placed into ‘lost mode’ it locks the phone, displays contact information, and enables tracking. Ordinarily, lost Mode does not erase data or remotely erase the device. Should Mr H be able to address the concerns Astrenska has, by showing his phone had now been put into ‘lost mode,’ I’d expect it to review matters. I note Mr H’s comments about deleting his account. But I haven’t seen any credible or persuasive evidence to show the steps Mr H has taken to challenge the dormant account, and have it re-opened in order to carry out Astrenska’s request. As such, I don’t think it’s unreasonable of Astrenska to conclude, based on the available evidence, that Mr H hasn’t shown an insured event covered by his policy had taken place and decline the claim. Based on the current evidence, I won’t be asking Astrenska to reconsider, or pay anything in settlement of, Mr H’s claim for the lost phone. Having considered Mr H’s representations alongside Astrenska’s concerns about the claim, I’m satisfied Astrenska’s actions have been fair, and in line with what we’d expect in the circumstances. My final decision For the reasons provided I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Neeta Karelia Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --