Thasnim Dawood as an assistant ombudsman has not given sufficient reasoning as to how she came to favour the Insurance company. The reason why the insurance company had requested an armed response was due to the fact that they claimed there was no burglar proofing in the house. When this was proved to be false Thasnim Dawood still went in favour of the Insurance company because in the policy they had used the term "alarm warranty", which any layman would assume means the alarm is in perfect working order, and not necessarily linked up to an alarm company. Thasnim Dawood also did not take into consideration the report given in by the independent assessor which clearly had shown that a "genuine loss had occurred".
0 comments