An insurer’s forensic investigation of a car theft has failed to convince the complaints authority a policyholder’s claim should be denied.

The claimant said he left his vehicle locked and parked outside his home, being unable to park in his garage because the electric gate was faulty. The car was missing next morning.

CCTV footage showed the car being driven away the previous evening, and the insured said when he checked the footage from up to 30 minutes before it was stolen, none of the three cameras showed anyone approaching or leaving it. The car has not been recovered.

RACQ Insurance engaged a locksmith as part of its probe. It said the CCTV indicated the thief entered from the passenger side but there was no key-lock entry on that side and there was no sign the car was broken into. The central lock could be heard unlocking, with no alarm sounding, and the engine started within a minute and 35 seconds.

The insurer contended it was impossible to illicitly operate the car in the time frame shown on the CCTV footage and the likely explanation was the person who took the vehicle “used the correctly coded key”.

It questioned why the car was “parked in an angle between CCTV cameras”, why the perpetrator entered from the passenger side instead of the driver’s side, and why the driver’s side door was then opened without anyone entering.

The insured told the Australian Financial Complaints Authority the sound of the central lock, captured by CCTV, was not accompanied by the sound of a door opening, and it was likely the central lock button was activated from inside the car using technology bought online.

He said the insurer had not done enough to investigate his claim, and the ombudsman agrees.

AFCA’s ruling says there is no evidence that physically links the complainant to the theft, and it is not persuaded by the insurer’s forensic findings. It says the insurer should accept the claim.

“I find it significant that the insurer has not found any financial motive or credibility concerns (other than the forensic findings),” an AFCA adjudicator said.

See the ruling here.