Ask the insurer for the full non-disclosure rationale in writing and request a formal review using the insurer’s official complaints process today. If nothing is done, the rejection usually hardens into a final decision and any payout stays on hold. Keep communication factual and focused on what was asked, what was answered, and what would have changed the premium or cover. Prepare to escalate once the insurer issues a final response or the complaint times out.
Most people get further by challenging the insurer’s assumptions and supplying a clear timeline rather than arguing about fairness. If the policy was arranged through a broker or comparison site, gather what was shown on-screen and what was submitted, because disputes often turn on the exact questions asked.
What the problem is
An insurance claim can be rejected in the UK because the insurer says something relevant was not disclosed when the policy was taken out, renewed, or amended. This often hits at the worst moment: after a loss has already happened, when repairs, replacement costs, or liability bills are waiting. It affects home, motor, travel, pet, and gadget policies, and it can also affect add-ons like legal expenses or breakdown cover.
In practice, this tends to appear after the claim has been logged and the insurer has asked follow-up questions, requested documents, or run checks against previous claims and public records. Many people first see the issue as a “reservation of rights” letter or a request for more detail, then a partial response, and then a rejection or an offer to settle on reduced terms. It is also common for the insurer to cancel the policy from a certain date, which creates a second problem: needing to answer future insurance questions about cancellations or refused claims.
Why this happens
Non-disclosure disputes usually come from a mismatch between what the insurer believes was asked and what the customer believes was relevant. Common triggers include medical history on travel insurance, previous claims on home insurance, modifications on motor policies, business use, changes in occupancy, unspent convictions, or a change in where the vehicle is kept overnight. Another frequent cause is rushed online buying where the summary looks right but one answer is wrong, incomplete, or carried over from an old quote.
Insurers have a strong incentive to test eligibility and pricing after a claim because that is when the financial exposure becomes real. The process often involves underwriting review, data matching, and a decision on whether the missing or incorrect information would have changed the premium, excess, or whether cover would have been offered at all. A typical organisational response pattern is that the first reply focuses on policy wording and “duty to disclose”, and only later will the insurer engage with the exact question set and how the answer was captured.
Where a broker is involved, the issue can also be about who input the answers and what was recorded. If a call was taken, the insurer may rely on a call recording and the script; if it was online, the insurer may rely on a question flow and a “statement of fact” document. Many disputes turn on small details: whether a question was asked in a way that a reasonable customer would understand, whether “ever” meant ever, and whether the insurer is treating an honest mistake as something more serious.
Your rights or position
In UK cases, leverage comes from pinning the insurer down to specifics: the exact question asked, the exact answer recorded, and what the insurer says would have changed if the correct information had been provided. The most effective challenges are practical rather than rhetorical: showing that the question was ambiguous, that the answer was accurate as understood at the time, or that the insurer’s “would not have insured” position is inconsistent with its own underwriting approach.
It also helps to separate three different outcomes that insurers often blur together in letters: refusing the claim, reducing the payout, and cancelling or voiding the policy. Each has different practical consequences for future insurance and for any third-party liabilities. Where the insurer is alleging deliberate or reckless non-disclosure, asking for the evidence behind that allegation often changes the tone of the review, because many disputes are actually about misunderstanding, not intent.
Where a broker or comparison site was used, it is often possible to show that the customer disclosed information during the journey but it was not captured correctly, or that the question set did not reasonably prompt the detail now being relied on. If the insurer is relying on a “statement of fact”, checking whether it was provided and whether there was a realistic opportunity to correct it can be decisive in complaint handling.
Legal or official basis
The practical route for most rejected claims is the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) complaint process, which can review whether the insurer treated the disclosure issue fairly in the circumstances and whether the remedy offered matches what usually happens in UK insurance disputes. The FOS typically looks at the question wording, how the sale was conducted, what information was available at the time, and what the insurer would have done if the correct information had been given, then decides whether the insurer’s outcome should stand or be adjusted.
Before the FOS will consider it, the insurer must be given the chance to resolve the complaint through its own process, and a final response letter (or a complaint timeout) is normally needed. The FOS route is designed for consumers and tends to be document-led, so a clear timeline and copies of the question set matter more than long arguments.
GOV.UK guidance explains how to take a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service and what to expect from the process.
What evidence matters
Evidence that shows what was asked and what was answered is usually more valuable than evidence about the loss itself, because the dispute is about policy formation and underwriting. Start by collecting the policy schedule, certificate, statement of fact, proposal form (if any), renewal invite, and the insurer’s rejection letter. If the policy was bought online, screenshots, confirmation emails, and any “your answers” review page can be crucial; if it was bought by phone, request the call recording and transcripts where available.
Also gather anything that shows what the insurer says was missing: medical letters for travel policies, V5C and modification receipts for motor, tenancy or occupancy evidence for home, or prior claims history documents. If the insurer claims it would not have offered cover, ask for the underwriting notes or a clear explanation of the underwriting rule relied on, because vague statements are harder to defend when reviewed.
What not to do matters too. Do not rewrite history in a way that conflicts with documents already submitted, and do not send large bundles without a short index and a timeline, because key points get missed. One thing not to do yet is to accept a reduced settlement or sign a “full and final” agreement until the insurer has explained exactly how the reduction was calculated and what it means for the policy status.
Checklist to pull together:
- Policy schedule, statement of fact, and renewal documents
- Claim correspondence, rejection letter, and any reservation of rights
- Proof of the disputed fact (records, receipts, letters, or logs)
- Evidence of the sales journey (screenshots, emails, or call details)
Three common mistakes seen in UK complaints:
- Arguing only about fairness without addressing the exact question and recorded answer
- Sending documents but not stating what each document proves in the timeline
- Admitting “it was forgotten” in writing when the issue is actually unclear wording or a system carry-over
What to do next
Get reasons
Ask the insurer to confirm, in writing, the precise non-disclosure it relies on, the question wording used at the point of sale or renewal, and the answer it has recorded. Request copies of the statement of fact, proposal, and underwriting notes relevant to the decision, plus any call recording if the policy was arranged by phone. If the insurer says the policy is void or cancelled, ask for the effective date and whether any third-party cover is affected (especially for motor).
Build timeline
Create a simple timeline covering: when the policy was bought or renewed, what information was provided, when the disputed fact existed, and when it was discovered. Match each disputed point to a document: a screenshot, an email, a medical record, a receipt, or a log. Where the question was ambiguous, write a short explanation of how it was understood at the time, using the insurer’s own wording rather than general statements.
Use complaints
Submit a formal complaint using the insurer’s official complaints process (usually found under “Complaints” on the insurer’s website or in the policy documents). The complaint should ask for a specific remedy: reinstatement of the claim decision, recalculation of any proportionate settlement, and correction of the policy status if cancellation/voiding is not justified. Prepare to include the policy number, claim reference, the disputed question and answer, and a short timeline with supporting documents, but do not include unnecessary personal data beyond what the insurer already holds.
Checklist for the complaint submission:
- Policy and claim references
- The exact disputed question and recorded answer
- A dated timeline with 2–4 key documents attached
- The outcome being requested (pay, adjust, or reinstate)
The normal response timeframe for an insurance complaint is up to eight weeks for a final response. If there is no final response by then, or if the final response maintains the rejection without addressing the evidence, escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service using its official complaint route and attach the final response letter or proof of the complaint date.
Escalate smartly
If the insurer’s position is that the claim is refused because the policy would never have been offered, focus escalation on the underwriting basis and the clarity of the question set. If the insurer offers a reduced payout, ask for the premium comparison or calculation that supports the reduction and whether the policy remains valid going forward. Where the dispute is tied to how a payment method was used for the purchase (for example, a credit card used to buy the policy or pay the premium in a single transaction), it may be relevant to consider next steps similar to those in Section 75 claim rejected by lender, but only after the insurer has provided a clear written position and the complaint route is underway.
One sentence that reflects what is usually resolved in UK cases: many disputes settle once the insurer is challenged on the exact question wording and the underwriting impact is evidenced properly.
Change approach
If the insurer alleges deliberate or reckless non-disclosure, ask for the evidence supporting intent and keep responses tightly factual. If the issue is a broker error, raise a separate complaint with the broker using its official process, because the remedy may involve the broker rather than the insurer changing its underwriting stance. If the insurer is delaying while requesting repeated information, respond once with a complete pack and ask for confirmation that the file is now ready for decision, because open-ended “still reviewing” updates can drift past the point where escalation becomes necessary.
Related issues nearby
If the rejection is tied to a technicality outside disclosure, such as a missed servicing record or a strict condition that the insurer says invalidates cover, the pattern can resemble a warranty invalidated due to technicality dispute and the same evidence-first approach tends to work. Where the insurer’s stance forces a court route and paperwork deadlines become tight, problems like a Court claim struck out due to technical error can become relevant, particularly if a claim is issued before the complaint trail is properly documented. These related issues are worth considering when the insurer’s letters start using final language such as “void”, “repudiated”, or “full and final”.
FAQ quick answers
Policy voided meaning
A policy voided for non-disclosure usually means the insurer is treating the cover as if it should not have existed, so the complaint should challenge the question set and underwriting basis. Ask for written confirmation of the effective date and what happens to any premium already paid.
Reduced payout offer
A reduced payout for non-disclosure is often presented as a proportionate settlement, so request the premium comparison and the calculation behind the reduction. Do not accept “full and final” wording until the figures and policy status are clear.
Future insurance impact
The future insurance impact of a non-disclosure dispute usually depends on whether the policy was cancelled, voided, or simply had a claim declined, so get the insurer to state the exact outcome in writing. Keep that letter for future proposal questions.
Broker input errors
Broker input errors causing non-disclosure disputes are handled best by complaining to the broker and insurer in parallel, each using their official complaints process. Provide evidence of what was said or typed during the sale journey and what was later recorded.
Before you move on
Set a diary note for the complaint date and the eight-week point, and keep everything in one timeline so escalation is straightforward if the insurer stays vague. Time pressure can show up as being pushed to accept a quick reduced settlement before the insurer has explained the calculation.
Get help with the next step
Contact UKFixGuide — If the insurer is relying on “non-disclosure”, bring the rejection letter and the statement of fact so the disputed question and answer can be checked against the timeline.
