The industry ombudsman has rejected a demand for compensation from a homeowner who alleged jewellery and silverware worth almost $32,000 were stolen by a builder appointed by his insurer.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the man has not established the builder took his items, so it would not be fair for insurer Suncorp to have to pay compensation.

However, the homeowner can make a claim under his contents cover and the insurer will have to assess it.

The man made a water leak claim in May 2023, which Suncorp accepted.

The appointed builder completed repairs in November 2024, and the homeowner said he discovered the following month that jewellery and a collection of silver spoons stored in a suitcase under his stairs were missing.

The jewellery, valued at $29,200, included gold coins, bracelets, chains, crosses and diamond pieces. The silver spoon collection was valued at $2800.

The homeowner said the storage area was cordoned off from the work area and the builder had no reason to access it.

Related article: Missing names to blame as travellers pay for booking error

He said his wife saw a “flustered” employee of the builder walking away from the area.

The builder denied responsibility. It said the employee had a legitimate reason to be near the storage area because the homeowner asked it to install a new door there.

The builder also pointed to a key safe outside the property that was left by previous builders, saying its code had apparently not been changed.

This meant other people could have accessed the property without forced entry.

AFCA acknowledges the loss was distressing for the complainant but says the evidence does not establish when the items disappeared, how they were removed or who was responsible.

“The police material does not include an official report or any substantive finding that identifies who was responsible.

“In those circumstances, it would not be fair to require the insurer to compensate the complainant on the basis [the builder] was responsible for the missing valuables.

“The fact that repairers were engaged by the insurer and had access to the property does not, of itself, establish that they took the items alleged to be missing.”

See the ruling here.