The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has told Insurance Manufacturers of Australia to reimburse a claimant whose car was stolen while parked at a friend’s house.

The complainant lodged a claim about two days after her vehicle was stolen in the early hours of March 23 2022.

She said she had bought the car from her friend, referred to as AA, but left it at their home to allow them to service it. AA was a qualified motor mechanic.

Insurance Manufacturers of Australia said there were “several concerns and anomalies regarding the claimed event”. 

The insurer said the complainant failed to show she had bought the vehicle and lacked information on its service history, and it questioned why she would buy insurance despite not driving the car. The insurer also noted AA had not helped with its inquiries into the matter.

The complaints authority says it is not unusual for the complainant not to have a purchase receipt because the vehicle was privately bought from AA.

It says the complainant provided bank statements confirming a $35,000 payment described as “AA-Van”, and that additional payments could have been made with cash.

The authority says information about the vehicle’s service history, mechanical works or modifications would have been in the vehicle when it was stolen. 

The ruling says it was valid for the owner to buy insurance because it covered several non-driving losses, including theft. It agrees it would have been helpful if AA had assisted with the insurer’s inquiries, but that is not enough to allow a claim denial. 

The insurer also questioned why the vehicle stayed at AA’s home for more than nine months after it was purchased, and highlighted inconsistencies regarding its compliance and build date on two documents. 

The ruling says it is unclear why the vehicle was stored at AA’s home so long, noting the service work appeared to be basic. However, AFCA accepts the complainant provided plausible reasons, including Melbourne’s lockdown laws and her husband’s poor health.

The decision acknowledges the “unusual situation” around the inconsistent dates, but notes the vehicle’s identification number is consistent across the documents.

“I accept that it would be unlikely a licensed motor vehicle tester would have [made] an error such as the build date (not the Australian compliance date of a vehicle), [but] it is not implausible,” the authority’s adjudicator said. 

AFCA says the information provided shows the complainant owned the vehicle and suffered a loss. The decision requires Insurance Manufacturers of Australia to accept the claim and pay the policyholder.   

Click here for the ruling.