Why an empty home can affect a claim
A house that stands empty for weeks, whether because of a long holiday, hospital stay or renovation, can be a target for theft and vandalism, and is also exposed to burst pipes. Many home insurance policies restrict cover when a property is left unoccupied for a set period. This article draws on the Financial Ombudsman Service, the independent body that settles disputes between consumers and financial businesses, and on three of its published pages, one setting out its approach and one a case study. It describes the Ombudsman’s approach, not the terms of any particular policy, and it is not legal or financial advice.
The typical policy condition
The Ombudsman says that home insurance policies commonly exclude certain events, such as theft, attempted theft, malicious damage or escape of water, if the property has been left unoccupied for more than 30 or 60 days. It also notes that policies rarely define what “unoccupied” means, and that the term is potentially ambiguous. It can suggest either a property that is not fit to live in or one in which nobody is currently living.
That is the central problem for policyholders: a clause which looks clear to the insurer may not be clear at all when applied to a real situation.
How the Ombudsman reads “unoccupied”
Where the policy does not define the word, the Ombudsman says it applies the natural and ordinary meaning, taking account of the overall purpose of the contract. It states that a person can occupy premises, sometimes for many years, without physically being in them. Where a property was visited on a reasonably frequent basis, the Ombudsman may decide that it was occupied even if nobody slept there every night.
This matters for people with second homes, properties under renovation, and homeowners in hospital or care who intend to return.
Technical breaches and the cause of the loss
The Ombudsman states that insurers must not unreasonably reject a claim. It does not consider it good industry practice to reject a claim where the policyholder’s breach of a policy condition was only technical and unconnected to the circumstances of the claim. An example it gives is damage occurring within the first 30 days of a property being unoccupied: in that situation the insurer should normally meet the claim, even if the property had not been visited for longer, because the unoccupancy played no part in the loss.
The Ombudsman’s page also notes that its examples include properties being refurbished, which are visited often but cannot be lived in, and policyholders who were in hospital when a pipe burst.
A published example
In its case study “Insurer rejects claim because the house was left unoccupied”, the Ombudsman describes a policyholder who bought a property near Cardiff to renovate and later rent out. He visited nearly every weekend to carry out maintenance, sometimes staying overnight. On one visit he found the house damaged by arson. The insurer rejected the claim, relying on an exclusion for properties left unoccupied for more than 30 days.
The Ombudsman sided with the policyholder and told the insurer to pay. It found that the policy did not define “left unoccupied”, so the exclusion was ambiguous, and that the evidence showed monthly visits and work by contractors. Utility bills showed the property was in use and council tax payments showed it was not being treated as empty. Since the wording was unclear, it was read in the policyholder’s favour.
The case illustrates the Ombudsman’s reasoning rather than setting a rule. Each complaint turns on its facts and the policy wording.
Practical steps before leaving a home empty
The Ombudsman’s approach suggests some sensible habits. Check the policy for the number of days and the exact wording of the unoccupied clause, and note which events it excludes. Tell the insurer if the property will be empty for longer than the policy allows, so that alternative cover can be arranged. Keep records of visits, maintenance and contractor work, and keep utility and council tax records, because these were the type of evidence relied on in the published case.
If a claim is declined
The Ombudsman says that a policyholder must first complain to the insurer. If the insurer does not send a final response letter within eight weeks, or the policyholder is unhappy with the response, the complaint can be brought to the Ombudsman. Its page on settling claims says it looks at evidence from the policyholder, the insurer and relevant third parties, as well as the law, industry codes and good industry practice, and that where unfair treatment is found the aim is to put the person back in the position they would have been in if the problem had not happened.
The bottom line
Insurers commonly limit cover after 30 or 60 days of a property being unoccupied, but the Financial Ombudsman Service says the word is ambiguous, that a property can be occupied without someone being physically present, and that insurers should not reject claims for technical breaches unconnected to the loss. Policyholders should read the exact wording, tell the insurer about long absences and keep evidence of visits and use.