The financial services ombudsman has ruled against two homeowners in a break-in claim dispute, after their property was found to have been unoccupied for nine months.

The pair reported damage after thieves broke in and stole several items last May.

They explained the house was empty at the time because the older complainant suffered a stroke in August 2024 and moved in with the younger complainant at a unit closer to a hospital for her rehabilitation.

The younger complainant said he visited the insured home two to three times a week to do gardening and laundry, and he occasionally stayed overnight. He said he was there for a week in March last year.

Documents showed gas, electricity and water had all been used at the property, but the meter could not indicate when.

Insurer Allianz argued the loss was not covered because the home had been unoccupied for more than 90 days at the time of the theft.

Its policy defined unoccupied as: “No person is living in the home (living means a person eats, sleeps and inhabits the home) or the home is not connected to electrical power.”

More from AFCA: Dad fails to prove baby’s illness derailed holiday plan

The insurer referenced photos showing the property’s bathroom was not in use, which the younger complainant acknowledged. He said the pair instead used bathroom facilities at a swimming centre.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority accepts the younger complainant visited the home a few times a week, but this means the property was being inspected, not “lived in”.

The authority is unconvinced he stayed at the home for a week, considering “there were no bathroom facilities” and he would not want to leave the woman alone.

Addressing the complainants’ argument that it was not reasonably possible for them to stay in the home after the stroke, an AFCA ombudsman says there is no evidence the woman could not live there.

“I accept that it was more convenient for the complainants to live together. I also accept that it is possible the elder complainant did still need assistance from the younger complainant. However, there is insufficient material to persuade me that it was probable.”

See the ruling here.