My brother has recently had around £1800 worth of fishing equipment stolen from his shed. The theft took place whilst he was not at home - they forced his gate open and forced open the shed door. The thieves even returned for the second time whilst his claim was being dealt with by Directline. Directline instructed Anglian Fishing to deal with his claim and my brother was asked if they could replace. Given the fact that the thieves attempted to steal from his property again he requested a cash settlement. Directline have sent him a cheque for £600 less than the value of his claim that I find extraordinary. Whilst I appreciate that the insurers supplier can replace I find it an appalling state of affairs that under the circumstances they can deduct their suppliers discount as my brother is worried about having the items replaced only to be stolen again and as he lives in a very small 1 bedroom house he does not have the space to keep the items inside. Any idea's on whether we should complain and go to the ombudsman?

They may have made the reduction on the basis of wear and tear depreciation in the equipment. Check the policy - or was it a new ofr old policy?

Have you asked for an explnation for the reduction?

So to clarify...

The insurer offered to replace the items that were stolen which would have cost them £1200. (cover would have been new for old so would have got like for like replacements or equivalent spec/value if not)

Your brother in law declined this and wanted a cash settlement instead, which he is within his rights to do.

So Direct Line sent him a cheque for the £1200 it would have cost them to replace the items.

I don't see what the issue is here.

You cant expect them to pay out £1800 based on what you say the items are worth, they would only pay out what they can prove they are worth, and of course they would use their own suppliers, in this case anglian fishing.

You can go to 5 different tackle shops and get 5 different prices for the same rod, would you pay the highest or the lowest price?

IMO you haven't got an argument here as they have paid out the correct amount.

D.A