DRN-6229424

The complaint Mr and Mrs T are unhappy with the settlement amount Lloyds Bank General Insurance Limited (“LBG”) offered for their stolen jewellery. Mr and Mrs T jointly held buildings and contents insurance, underwritten by LBG. For ease of reading, and because he brought the complaint, I’ll refer only to Mr T throughout my decision. Any reference to what LBG did includes actions taken on its behalf. What happened The background to this complaint is well-known to both parties, so I’ve summarised what I think are the key events. In November 2024, jewellery was stolen from Mr T’s home. He made a claim under his contents insurance, which LBG accepted. Mr T was satisfied with the settlement offer for some items of jewellery, but he didn’t agree with the value placed on other items. Mr T raised three complaints with LBG about the overall burglary claim, jewellery settlement offer, and the delays handling his claim. LBG paid £304, £200 and £100 in recognition of the delays and service shortfalls. However, Mr T said it had failed to address what he considered to be the unfair settlement values for his jewellery. To resolve his complaint, Mr T wants LBG to reassess the jewellery fairly, using comparators that accurately reflect the bespoke nature of the stolen items, or offer a cash settlement where replacements are not available. Mr T also wanted his claim settled without further delay. LBG issued three final responses to Mr T’s complaints. The first, dated 25 February 2025, acknowledged service shortfalls and delays relating to the overall claim, and LBG paid £304 compensation. On 13 May, LBG acknowledged further delays since its 25 February final response and that settlement was still outstanding. It paid £200 compensation. On 19 July, LBG acknowledged the further delays in settling the claim, and it paid £100 compensation. LBG went on to say that the settlement offered for the jewellery was based on the evidence available and it would reconsider the claim if Mr T provided any further evidence to demonstrate the value of the jewellery. Mr T was unhappy with LBG’s response. He said LBG had increased the settlement offered for some items, such as a watch, after he’d provided details of a another model for a more accurate comparison. Therefore, he felt the expert opinion regarding the valuation of the jewellery was unreliable. Mr T brought his complaint to us. Our investigator didn’t uphold Mr T’s complaint. She said the compensation LBG paid for the delay was fair and in line with our published guidance. Our investigator said that LBG had made offers based on expert opinion and, in the absence of any contradictory evidence, she

-- 1 of 4 --

thought it had reasonably relied on the settlement values reported. Mr T didn’t agree. He accepted some of the points the investigator made, but he remained of the opinion that LBG had not relied upon fair comparators. Because Mr T didn’t agree with our investigator, the complaint was 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. Having done so, I’ve decided not to uphold Mr T’s complaint for broadly the same reasons as our investigator. My remit here is to decide matters addressed in LBG’s 13 May and 19 July final response letters. The 25 February 2025 final response letter was brought out of time and is referenced only for background information. I won’t repeat the details about specific items which are the subject of this complaint. That’s because I don’t think it’s necessary to do so in order to explain the reasons for my decision. However, I’d like to reassure both parties that I have not disregarded the detail and extent of loss. For clarity, the circumstances of the burglary and the claim itself are not in dispute. The overriding issues of complaint are the delays handling the claim and the way in which LBG determined the settlement values. The Financial Conduct Authority’s rules (ICOBS 8.1.1) say that insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly. So I’ve considered these two aspects of Mr T’s complaint in line with the rules, amongst other things, and what I think is fair in the circumstances Delays There’s no dispute that LBG didn’t handle the claim as promptly as it ought to have done. In recognition of the delays between 26 February and 19 July, LBG paid £300 compensation. LBG has made its settlement offer for the jewellery in dispute which it will not amend unless further evidence becomes available. Therefore, any further delay in settling the claim is because Mr T hasn’t accepted the offer. While he’s not obliged to accept, there’s nothing more LBG can do to progress the claim. So, looking just at the delays, I’m satisfied that LBG has acknowledged its shortfalls and paid compensation in recognition of the avoidable delays. As its payments are in line with what I’d expect in the circumstances, I see no reason to ask LBG to pay any more. Settlement offer The policy sets out the detail of the contract between Mr T and LBG so, to begin with, I’ve looked at whether the settlement offer was made in line with the terms and conditions. LBG relied on the following section of the policy in response to Mr T’s complaint about the settlement amount: You must help us look after your claim by doing what we ask. We might ask you to give us proof you own what you’re claiming for and its value. This could be things like a receipt or valuation you had done. If we ask for you to give us proof, you must give it to us or we might not be able to pay your claim.

-- 2 of 4 --

Mr T said he was unable to provide any documentation to show he’d bought the jewellery for the amount he stated because it was stored with, and stolen at the same time as the jewellery. This is a plausible explanation and I have no reason to doubt what Mr T said. However, it doesn’t change the fact that he was unable to prove the value of the jewellery. LBG relied on photos Mr T provided, and the expert opinion of the replacement value. I’ve looked at Mr T’s photos and LBG’s explanation for the values assigned to each item, and I’m satisfied that its claim decision was reasonable based on the evidence available to it at the time. For the purpose of explaining my decision, I’ll refer to one item – the engagement ring. One photo shows an engagement ring being worn and another photo shows an engagement ring alongside a wedding band set down on a hard surface. The policy includes one specified item described as “Engagement ring”, insured to a limit of £6,000. There is no further information about the ring such as metal type, colour, or type and number of stones, and that would’ve been Mr T’s responsibility to provide when he purchased the policy. So LBG had limited information with which to identify the ring that was insured. My role is not to determine the value of the ring – rather it is to decide whether LBG offered a fair amount based on the information available to it. The photo of the ring being worn does not show it with sufficient clarity to say with certainty that it is the same one as that photographed next to the wedding band. The ring is silver coloured set with what appears to be a clear stone. But there’s nothing to show whether the metal is silver, white gold or platinum, or whether the stone is diamond, glass, or cubic zirconia. The first 10 results of a brief online search using the photograph of the ring show similar looking rings available for prices ranging between £89 and £6,250. Given what I’ve said here, and based on the limited evidence Mr T provided, I’m satisfied that LBG’s offer was reasonable and in line with the policy. I’ve gone on to consider whether the offer was fair in the circumstances. LBG hasn’t simply offered the lowest amount that a similar looking ring could be purchased for. It has taken into consideration Mr T’s description. I think that’s fair. LBG has also confirmed that if Mr T can provide further evidence to demonstrate that the ring was bespoke, exactly as described, and the value, it will reconsider the settlement amount. I think that, too, is fair. I understand that Mr T thinks because LBG increased the offer for another item, its valuation methodology is flawed. I don’t agree. What it does show is that LBG will reconsider its settlement offer if provided with sufficient evidence. It’s clear that the theft of such sentimental pieces of jewellery have upset Mr and Mrs T, and it’s understandable that they want to pursue a settlement which they think will at least replace the value of the jewellery, albeit not the emotional value. But, based on the evidence, I don’t think LBG has made an unreasonable offer or treated them unfairly when handling the claim settlement. Should Mr T locate any documentation to evidence his claim, for example, copy receipts from the original sellers, he may wish to provide that for LBG’s consideration.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision For the reasons I’ve given, my final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr and Mrs T’s complaint about Lloyds Bank General Insurance Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs T and Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 12 May 2026. Debra Vaughan Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --