A South Australian tenant who reportedly had $33,950 worth of items stolen from her former home will not be covered after a dispute ruling found she provided an “inconsistent version of events”. 

The complainant says the theft took place while she was in the process of moving homes after being evicted. She sought to hold her items at a storage facility while looking for another accommodation, and as part of the agreement with the facility she was required to have a contents insurance policy. 

The claimant purchased her policy online at 9:27pm on October 2 last year and contacted a removalist to transport the items to the storage unit. She says the storage facility had closed by the time the removalists arrived, requiring her to keep the items at her previous rental property.

On October 5, the insured lodged a claim, initially reporting that the items were stolen on September 28, during which she did not have cover. The claimant later changed her account and told RAA Insurance that the items were stolen on October 3 and 4.

The insurer declined the claim, noting that its policy did not cover thefts that occurred within 48 hours of the policy’s inception. It says the complainant failed to show that the items were stolen after 9:27pm on October 4.

The insured provided a police report, which revealed that the theft was reported to the police on October 12. The report also shows that the police attended the property several times between September 28 and October 5 to help resolve disputes over items left at the property after the insured had been evicted.

According to the report, the claimant says a person cut the locks to two sheds and stole electrical items amounting to $18,340 sometime during the night of October 3 and morning of October 4. 

The insured says another theft occurred the day after, during which the thieves took $15,610 worth of jewellery, electrical gadgets and other household items. The police did not arrest anyone relating to the thefts due to insufficient evidence.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acknowledged the difficulty of the claimant’s situation but did not consider the claim coverable under the policy.

AFCA says information provided by the complainant had been inconsistent and lacked “contemporaneous evidence” to show that the loss occurred after the policy’s 48-hour waiting period for theft losses. It says the loss likely occurred within 48 hours of the policy’s inception, which entitled the insurer to decline the claim. 

“From review of the available evidence, I do not consider the complainant has established a valid claim,” AFCA said.

“The complainant has provided an inconsistent version of events and has not been able to provide any objective evidence (such as photographs taken at or around the time or a letter from the property manager) to support that a theft occurred after 9.27pm on October 4 2022.

“Although the complainant has provided a police report, this does not necessarily support her position that the theft occurred after 9.27pm on October 4 2022.

“Instead, the police report identifies further inconsistencies and that the complainant’s contents may have been stolen on September 28 2022, October 2, October 3 or October 4 2022.”

Click here for the ruling.