A frustrated gang robbery victim has lashed out at her insurance company after her house was raided.
According to a
Daily Record report, Alison Simpson had £20,000 worth of items stolen from her home and also had her car taken. However, her insurer, AXA, reportedly refused to cover the cost of the stolen goods, initially stating that the break-in was excluded under the terms of her policy. It was initially stated that with no evidence of forced entry to the property, there was no pay-out entitlement.
AXA has since agreed to make the claim – a decision it reached before any media coverage – and is reportedly considering a goodwill payout. However, Ms Simpson remains frustrated telling the publication that she was disgusted by the events.
“AXA took four months to come to this decision and have not shown the slightest bit of empathy,” she said. “I’m disgusted by the way we’ve been treated. They’ve looked for a way of not paying right from the start.”
Her home was raided back in March when she, her husband and her 11-year-old son were at home. According to her statement, she and her son had already gone to bed – and her husband was dozing downstairs and locked the door in the pitch black, only setting the alarm during the early hours. They didn’t know about the break-in until the next morning when they realised their car had been taken. They had also lost jewelry, passports, premium bonds and more.
Though the police couldn’t find evidence of forced entry, Ms Simpson states they did have witnesses to the car being driven away and got a fingerprint from a forensics expert. However, she remarked “that was not enough for AXA.”
In response, AXA told the publication that: “Following a review, we have agreed to pay the claim in full pending the validation of some high-value items. This claim’s taken longer than it should so we have placed a dedicated claims handler on the case to bring it to a conclusion as quickly as possible.”
What is your opinion on these circumstances? Should Ms Simpson have received her payout straight away – or was an initial refusal correct given the absence of forced entry? Leave a comment below with your thoughts.
Related Stories:
Thousands scammed from insurance supplier
AXA wins lawsuit against father and son fraudsters
