A Toyota Hilux driver has won a substantial payout during a claim dispute with Allianz after a sudden downpour sent rain through windows left open on a hot work day, flooding his ute interior.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) said it was “not persuaded” by evidence presented by Allianz’s automotive consultant who inspected the ute five weeks after the storm.

It determined Allianz should pay out $21,447, minus any applicable policy deductions.

The figure included an estimated repair cost of $12,010 plus a 15% contingency, $7100 in hire car costs, the purchase of a wet vacuum, police check and licence fee, towing costs, and a Toyota dealer report conducted in September which found heavy rust on several components and water marks behind the dashboard.

The man held a comprehensive motor policy with Allianz for his a 2010 Toyota Hilux SR5 with an agreed value of $26,550.

On January 20 last year, he was working on a site on a hot day and parked the Hilux with most of the windows left down.

He said there was a sudden heavy downpour and the seats became saturated and the floor had a pool of water. While driving home, he noticed the air vent was spitting out water, the windows struggled to go up, the hazard lights went off, the airbag lights turned on and off and the windscreen wipers were jittery.

He bought a wet vacuum cleaner though he could not remove all the water, and the day after the downpour lodged a claim seeking $38,240.

Allianz declined the claim on the basis he had not established the damage was accidental.

Its consultant found no flood evidence apart from “some very slight dampness present on the left rear and both floor mats”.

There was no moisture under the side sill panel trims, he said, no water markings or dirt stains on the inner door trims or within the cavities to suggest rainwater poured in, and no moisture in the cushions.

If two inches of water had entered as the owner described, there would be a far higher level of water dampness still present, the consultant said, and water would have remained within cavities below the floor coverings with a strong damp odour in the cabin, condensation dripping from the glass and fabric very damp.

AFCA ruled mostly in favour of the Hilux owner.

“It is possible the complainant could have manufactured the claim damage. However, it is equally possible water entered the vehicle due to rainfall,” AFCA’s ombudsman said.

“I am not persuaded … that there should have been more evidence of the inundation given … it had been cleaned, to a degree, by the wet vacuum.”

AFCA said that had Allianz had the ute inspected “contemporaneous to the event” instead of waiting five weeks it would have been in “an excellent position to determine if the inundation was as severe as stated”.

Over the five weeks, a long drying period had occurred and the water vacuumed.

“It is possible the vehicle has not been inundated to the degree the complainant says. However, there is no dispute there was rainfall. Further, the purchase of a wet vacuum around the time of the event supports the complainant’s evidence there was water inundation,” the ruling said.

AFCA said Allianz’s expert “cannot refute the fact water did enter the vehicle”.

“While he says he expected water to remain in certain parts, he does not explain why this is the case … particularly if the vehicle was well ventilated and drying during warm weather,” AFCA said.

“There is evidence of dampness. The consultant acknowledges this. This confirms the vehicle had been inundated to a degree.”

However, AFCA denied payouts for work tools or non-financial loss, saying Allianz “had legitimate concerns about the claim” which required its engagement of the forensic automotive consultant and several interviews.

See the full ruling here.