MiWay Insurance Delaying Goods in Transit Claim and Changing Requirements

I am raising a complaint about how MiWay Insurance is handling a Goods in Transit claim. The policy was active at the time of the incident, and premiums have always been paid monthly without fail. From the start of the claim, we were informed in writing that MiWay would not dispatch an assessor. Based on this instruction, and to prevent further loss, the damaged goods were returned to the owner of the goods. We were never advised that this would negatively affect the claim. Since then, we have cooperated fully. MiWay contacted our client directly, and the client provided everything requested, including photographs, quantities, invoices, and confirmations. We also submitted all documents requested by the assessor and brokers. Despite this cooperation, the claim has not been finalised. Instead, every time information is provided, new requirements continue to be introduced, including tracker reports, diesel-related questions, and salvage discussions before any formal claim decision has been communicated. More recently, the assessment process has escalated to requests for diesel receipts and enquiries relating to CCTV footage from filling stations, which has created further concern. These requests give the impression that the claim is being treated with increasing suspicion, despite no formal position being provided and despite there being no policy requirement for such evidence. In addition, during discussions with the appointed assessor, there have been repeated statements and implications suggesting that the claim may not be paid, without any clear written confirmation. While no formal rejection has been issued, these ongoing insinuations have created uncer*****y and anxiety as the requirements continue to change. Further concerns include: Driver dishonesty being raised, despite this not being clearly explained when the policy was taken out. References to dash cameras or truck-mounted cameras, even though the policy does not require vehicles to be fitted with cameras, nor does it state any penalty where cameras are not installed. Repeated emphasis on the size of the claim, despite MiWay having accepted the insured values and collected premiums for this level of cover. the prolonged delays and lack of clarity are now affecting our business operations, subcontractors, and client relationships. We are simply requesting that MiWay: Stop changing requirements during the claim process, Clearly confirm their position in writing, and Finalise the claim fairly based on the actual policy wording. At present, the handling of this claim feels unclear, disproportionate, and unnecessarily prolonged.claim number C*** / C***