A slip, but no discs

When Mr J was burgled, he notified the police of the incident and put in an insurance claim totalling £3,000 which included a DVD player, 14 DVD discs and a selection of other audio-visual equipment and jewellery.

But when the insurer questioned Mr J about the hi-fi, it emerged that rather than having bought it for £150, as he first stated, he had bought it from his brother for £60.

The insurance investiga tor, now suspicious, examined the list of DVDs included in the claim and noticed that some had yet to be released in the UK.

It was possible that they were imports bought over the internet, but when questioned, Mr J was unable to explain how he had bought them.

He then confessed that he had never owned a DVD player or discs, and said he wished to withdraw this part of his claim.

The insurer subsequently rejected Mr J's entire claim, refusing to pay out on any part of. It cited a policy exclusion that enables it to do this if any part of a claim is found to be false or exaggerated.

Since Mr J had admitted to this, the insurer felt it was acting fairly.

However, Mr J felt differently. He went to his solicitor who argued to the ombudsman on his behalf that one of the insurer's investigators had told Mr J that if he admitted to the false part of the claim, the rest of it would be processed more quickly.

The ombudsman unequivocally rejected the claim. In his report, he concluded that it was impossible to reconcile the claimant's statement with his solicitor's assertions.

"The only logical explanation was that Mr J had deliberately exaggerated his loss," the ombudsman said. "So the firm was entitled to refuse to make any payment."