They said you were careless.
A mistake isn’t recklessness.
You went to the bar. You left the window on the latch. You looked away for two minutes. Insurers lean hard on these clauses — but the legal bar is much higher than the letter suggests, and the breach usually has to have actually mattered.
Who's behind thisSteve Smart Helped people recover £25M+ from rejected claimsRe: Your claim
Dear ,
We have now completed our review of your claim.
You failed to take reasonable care to safeguard your property, as required by the policy.The items were left unattended and are therefore excluded under Section 2 of your policy.You did not take reasonable precautions to prevent loss or damage.The property was left insecure. Your claim is declined under the security conditions of the policy.
We therefore regret that we are unable to meet your claim on this occasion.
Yours sincerely,
Claims Department
What they mean
Every policy asks you to take reasonable care of the things it insures, and travel and home policies usually go further with specific conditions: items must not be left unattended, windows and doors must be locked, keys must not be left in the car.
The underlying idea is sound. Insurance covers misfortune, not indifference. And "unattended" is a word with real content — Steve’s working test is whether you kept the item close to you, under observation, and did not let it out of your sight for long.
Where it overreaches
The gap between what these clauses require and how they get used is wide. The courts have consistently set the bar at recklessness — genuinely not caring what happens — rather than at ordinary carelessness. Almost every claim involves a moment somebody would do differently in hindsight, and hindsight is not the test.
The second point is the one people almost never know, and it is worth the price of admission on its own: the breach usually has to have some bearing on the claim. As Steve puts it on the radio, the Ombudsman expects an insurer relying on a window-lock condition to show that the window actually mattered. Leave a window unlocked, and the thief comes through the front door, and your claim should still be paid.
And "unattended" itself is elastic. Insurers stretch it to cover a bag two feet away, a phone on the next sunlounger, or a van in sight of the roof you are standing on. That is not what the word means.
The counter-arguments
These are the points that put the burden back where it belongs. Not every one will apply to your case — the letter we write picks the ones that do.
Ask this first, because it decides a lot of cases and hardly anyone asks it. The Ombudsman expects an insurer relying on a security condition to show the breach was actually connected to what happened.
An unlocked window is irrelevant if the thief came through the door. A condition breached in a way that had nothing to do with the loss is not a reason to refuse the claim.
Courts have consistently held that clauses of this kind require recklessness — a genuine disregard for whether loss occurs — rather than the ordinary carelessness that everyone is guilty of at some point.
A refusal that describes an understandable human moment and calls it a failure to take reasonable care has applied the wrong standard, and saying so directly changes the conversation.
Ask for the definition in your policy, and compare it honestly with what actually happened. Where were you? How far away? Could you see it? For how long?
The real test is about proximity and observation — whether you kept the item close and in sight. Insurers apply the word far more broadly than any definition supports, and the facts often do not fit it once written down.
Which? took home and travel insurance to the FCA in a 2025 super-complaint, arguing that leading insurers were not following the rules meant to protect consumers and that the small print is unfair and lacks transparency. Security and unattended-items conditions are exactly the sort of terms that prompted it.
If the clause being used against you seems to demand a standard nobody could actually meet on holiday, you are not imagining it, and the regulator has been told as much.
Insurers must not unreasonably reject a claim. A refusal that applies a recklessness clause to a moment of ordinary life, or that relies on a breach unconnected to the loss, is open to challenge on that ground alone.
FCA ICOBS 8.1.1RSources: FCA Handbook — ICOBS 8.1 (claims handling)
How it works
You do not have to make these arguments yourself. That is what we are for.
Describe in plain English what happened and your current concern. Takes 60 seconds. We'll give you clear guidance on whether we can help and what to do next - completely free. You can start right now, even if you don't have your refusal letter with you.
Drop your refusal letter and insurance policy. Takes 2 minutes. No account needed.
Our system identifies the legal flaws in the refusal and writes a professional rebuttal with citations.
Send the letter to your insurer. Most reverse their decision. If not, escalate to the Ombudsman.
Start free. Pay only if we can help you win.
A small one-off fixed fee - not a lawyer's hourly bill.
Questions
Broadly, whether you kept the item close to you and under observation, and did not let it out of your sight for any length of time. It is about proximity and awareness rather than a fixed distance.
Check your own policy for a definition, then compare it honestly with what happened. Insurers apply the word far more widely than most definitions support.
Generally not. The courts have set the bar at recklessness — genuinely not caring whether loss happens — rather than ordinary carelessness.
If the letter describes an understandable lapse and treats it as a failure to take reasonable care, it has applied the wrong standard.
This is the argument to make. The Ombudsman expects an insurer relying on a window-lock condition to show that the unlocked window actually had some bearing on the claim.
If the thief entered another way, the breach did not matter, and your claim should still be paid.
They are under real scrutiny. Which? made a super-complaint to the FCA in 2025 about home and travel insurance, arguing the small print is unfair and lacks transparency.
That does not automatically win your claim, but it is useful context: if a clause seems to demand a standard no traveller could meet, the regulator has already been told so.
No. smarterclaims publishes legal information and writes letters you can send yourself — like a digital version of a published legal guide. We are not a law firm and we do not give advice.
If your case needs professional representation, we will tell you, and we can introduce you to the right people if you ask us to.
Checking whether you have a case is free. You see the analysis and the arguments before you pay anything.
The rebuttal letter is £49.99. It comes with an explanation of where you stand and a step-by-step plan.
There is a no-questions-asked money-back guarantee. If the pack is not useful, tell us within 14 days and we refund you in full.
It should not, and firms are required to handle complaints fairly. Insurers deal with complaints as routine business — a well-argued letter tends to be taken more seriously than an angry phone call, not less.
Free tool | Before anything goes wrong
Still haven't filed a claim?
Completely free. Get ahead of a refusal before it ever happens — check your cover for the gaps insurers rely on, so you can avoid the pitfalls and traps. No charge, no account.
Policy check
See where your cover falls short — before you ever need to use it.
Meet Steve Who's behind this
Forty years inside the insurance industry, in both senior legal and commercial roles. Former UK General Counsel at AIG. Current Chairman of Lancashire Insurance UK. Regular voice on LBC radio. Steve has watched the same disputes come up again and again — and built the library of arguments that smarterclaims runs on, based on his decades of experience.
“I've spent forty years on the inside of insurance. The same excuses come up again and again, and most consumers don't know how to overcome them. This is the tool I wish my clients had before they called me.”Steve SmartMore about Steve
Real people, real results
“After being injured in action, my military insurer tried to argue that my injuries weren't permanent — so they'd pay me only a small percentage of the policy limit. Steve identified several arguments to challenge their refusal, and they ended up paying me virtually the full policy limit.”
“After a major house fire destroyed our contents, our insurer said we were under-insured — and that they'd only pay a fraction of our claim. Your know-how helped us overcome their excuse and get everything we were asking for.”
“Following a house fire, my insurer's loss adjuster argued that a lot of the damage was excluded. Steve identified the arguments to make, and they ended up paying our claim in full.”
“When my husband's physiotherapy practice was forced to close temporarily due to a virus, our insurer said it wasn't on their list of diseases and wouldn't pay anything towards our loss of earnings. The arguments you came up with convinced them to pay up.”
“After a car crash that wasn't my fault, the insurer tried to write off my car for far less than it was worth. You guided me through exactly what I had to do and say — everything was clear and easy to understand, and I got the full amount I was owed.”
Real clients we have helped, shared with their written permission.
Claim smarter.
Describe what happened. We'll match it to the argument, and you'll have the rebuttal in minutes.