A Tasmanian whose claim for fire damage was denied on the basis the blaze was lit deliberately has lost a dispute before the ombudsman.

The ruling comes after RACT Insurance found the man had made similar claims before and noted inconsistencies in the information he provided.

The claimant reported a fire in his 1984 Windsor caravan, which was parked beside his home, in the early hours of January 22 last year.

He called the fire brigade and gave them the only key to unlock it.

An empty can of highly flammable engine starting spray was found inside the caravan, and police said the fire was deliberate, though no charges were laid.

RACT investigated the “suspicious circumstances” and found valuation discrepancies that it said demonstrated a financial motive for the owner.

More from AFCA: Stroke victim’s home empty and uncovered when thieves struck

The man had increased the sum insured twice to $25,200, despite making no major upgrades.

And a seller told RACT’s investigators the insured bought the caravan for $8000, while the man stated he paid $17,000.

RACT concluded the fire was an intentional act by the owner or someone acting with his knowledge, and declined the claim.

An Australian Financial Complaints Authority adjudicator said: “The evidence before me clearly does not support the fire was accidentally ignited or caused by a malicious third party.

“Critically, all investigators said no viable accidental ignition sources were identified. Electrical wiring was not energised, the battery was isolated, no appliances were operating, and there were no candles, cooking activity or other ignition hazards.”

The claimant said threatening letters he had received were evidence of a third-party threat. But no footprints, signs of tampering, tool marks or debris indicating intrusion were found.

The man gave conflicting statements about who was present on the night of the fire, whether the caravan’s roof vent was open and how it had been accessed before the blaze.

“I am persuaded that these inconsistencies weaken the plausibility of an external malicious third party being involved,” the ombudsman said.

AFCA says the evidence “consistently indicates that the fire was likely deliberately lit”.

See the ruling here.