Chaucer Insurance Company · DRN-6039117

The complaint Mrs W has complained that Chaucer Insurance Company Designated Activity Company (“Chaucer”) provided a poor service when she had to make a claim under her home insurance policy. What happened Both parties are familiar with the circumstances of this complaint, so I won’t repeat the background in full here. Instead, I’ll provide a brief summary of events and will then focus on giving the reasons for my decision. Mrs W’s property was flooded in October 2023 following a named storm. She made a claim to Chaucer and a loss adjuster was sent to assess the damage. The property was rendered uninhabitable and Mrs W had to move out. The claim was accepted and Chaucer attempted to find alternative accommodation. Mr W initially moved into a care home and Mr and Mrs W moved into a rental property in mid-November. Drying out work still had not commenced by December. And by April the following year, Mrs W was advised that the walls weren’t drying out as hoped and a cavity wall specialist would need to be appointed. As the claim progressed, Mrs W didn’t feel that Chaucer was doing everything it should’ve. She said there were communication issues, significant delays, and instances of poor workmanship. At various points, Mrs W says Chaucer had to be chased for updates, as it hadn’t paid the rent, or care home fees, and its loss adjuster wasn’t responding to Mrs W. At the start of 2025, Mrs W received notification by post that they had to move out of the rental property by 21 February. They were told that as their property now had toilet facilities and electricity they could move back in. But the stairlift Mr W needed hadn’t been refitted and it would’ve been unsafe for him to return without this, which could only be possible once the stair carpet had also been fitted. At the property, the garage door which had been fitted was faulty, despite Chaucer telling Mrs W it was a like for like replacement. Mr and Mrs W moved back into the property in March 2025 and made a complaint about all the service failings they’d experienced. They said, among other things, that there were snagging issues, an alarm system was incomplete and holes had been drilled for this but hadn’t been adequately finished, a garden gate had been disposed of, and the boundary wall needed repointing due to flood damage. In its response to their complaint, Chaucer said it agreed that the service provided could’ve been better and offered Mrs W £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it had caused. Mrs W didn’t accept its offer and referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our Investigator considered the complaint, and recommended a higher level of compensation. He said the impact of Chaucer’s claim handling was significant, so it should pay Mrs W £1,000 in total for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in this complaint.

-- 1 of 4 --

He also told Chaucer to pay for the remaining works, including the repointing of the other part of the boundary wall. Mrs W accepted our Investigator’s recommendations but Chaucer did not. It said whilst it had paid for some of the additional disputed work, Mrs W was claiming for more than damage that had occurred during the flood and that the boundary wall had shown signs of damage before the loss occurred. As an agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint was referred to me for an Ombudsman’s decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As this is an informal service, I’m not going to respond here to every point raised or comment on every piece of evidence Mrs W and Chaucer have provided. Instead, I’ve focused on those I consider to be key or central to the issues in dispute. But I would like to reassure both parties that I have considered everything submitted. And having done so, I’m upholding this complaint in line with our Investigator’s recommendations. I’ll explain why. The insurance industry regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), has set out rules and guidance about how insurers should handle claims. These are contained in the ‘Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook’ (ICOBS). ICOBS 8.1 says an insurer must handle claims promptly and fairly; provide reasonable guidance to help a policyholder make a claim and give appropriate information on its progress; and not unreasonably reject a claim. It should also settle claims promptly once settlement terms are agreed. I’ve kept this in mind while considering this complaint together with what I consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. In Mrs W’s case, I don’t think Chaucer handled the claim promptly or fairly at all times. It has now said it’s made payments for the snagging issues, garage door, garden gate, and alarm system, which total £9,099.62. It also said it would repoint the affected brickwork but not all the brickwork to the side of the main building and all the boundary walls, which it didn’t consider were affected by the flood. It said the repointing of brickwork to the rear boundary wall was accepted. I agree with our Investigator in relation to the snagging work, and the outstanding items Chaucer says it has already reimbursed Mrs W for, so I won’t comment on those further, save to say that my reasons for upholding those aspects of Mrs W’s complaint are similar to the Investigator’s. That is, because the evidence shows Chaucer installed a garage door which was not fit for purpose and which Mrs W could not use, it did not properly complete the alarm system, the quality of the repairs was inadequate and this left several snagging issues at the property, and it should not have disposed of the garden gate. In relation to the brickwork around her property, Mrs W says this was affected by the flood and that various parts of the wall required repointing. Chaucer didn’t agree with the extent of the damage claimed for, and said the repointing would be limited to the areas that were damaged by the flood, in line with the policy terms. It said its understanding was that Mrs W was claiming for parts of the wall to be repointed above the level that the flood waters had reached during the insured peril, and that online images showed that the condition of the brickwork before the loss occurred was largely consistent with what was shown in photos from after the flood. However, I’ve reviewed all the evidence provided by both parties in relation to the affected walls. Mrs W has sent us a video showing extensive flooding and it’s clear that the walls in

-- 2 of 4 --

question would’ve been affected by this to a significant degree, as I can see from that video that water was flowing to a substantial height during the flood. The boundary walls referred to are covered by the policy terms and I think it’s likely that if one wall was damaged and needed repointing then the others which were also either fully or partially submerged at the time of the flood would have been damaged to some extent by the same insured peril. Whilst Chaucer has maintained its position that some areas of the wall showed signs of wear and tear (in particular failed pointing) prior to the loss, I’ve reviewed the images provided and I’m satisfied that the pointing on the majority of the wall appears to have been intact prior to the flood, and it wasn’t in as poor a state of repair as might be expected for a wear and tear exclusion to reasonably apply. So Chaucer has said two different things in relation to the damage to the boundary wall – firstly, that the policy excluded pre-existing damage, and secondly, that the parts of the wall above the flood water level shouldn’t need repointing and the claim went beyond what’s provided by Mrs W’s policy. When making a claim on an insurance policy, it is for the insured – so in this case Mrs W – to demonstrate she’s suffered a loss covered by the policy. If she can do so, then Chaucer will need to accept the claim unless it can show it can fairly rely on a valid exclusion to decline it. And if Chaucer wishes to rely on an exclusion in the policy, then the onus is on Chaucer to show that exclusion has been fairly applied in the circumstances. In this case, I’m satisfied from the video and photo evidence I’ve seen, that Mrs W has been able to show that the wall in question was likely damaged by the flood and should therefore be repaired. But I’m not satisfied Chaucer has been able to sufficiently demonstrate that Mrs W is claiming for areas not damaged by the flood, or that a valid exclusion applies here. I say this because, the photos it’s provided don’t persuade me that much of the damage was pre-existing, or that the side wall shouldn’t be repointed in the same way the rear wall was. Based on everything I’ve seen, I also think Chaucer’s offer of compensation doesn’t adequately reflect the significant disruption, inconvenience and difficulties Mrs W has faced throughout this claim. Whilst a certain level of upset and frustration is expected with a claim of this nature, which requires a policyholder to move out of their home for an extended period, I think Chaucer caused avoidable delays, which meant Mrs W was away from her property for several months longer than she should’ve been. I’m satisfied that communication could’ve been better, as Mrs W was frequently chasing for updates, and mistakes were made along the way which caused added annoyance, such as the disposal of the garden gate and a failure to pay invoices on time. Some of the issues were of course unavoidable. For example, I can see that Chaucer encountered some difficulties and inevitable delays when asbestos was found – but I think the majority of the delays could’ve been prevented, and I’ve also kept in mind that Mr and Mrs W were elderly and vulnerable consumers, for whom these inconveniences would’ve had a substantially greater impact. I’m satisfied therefore, that total compensation of £1,000 is fair and reasonable for this complaint, as this adequately reflects the fact that Mrs W was caused distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. Putting things right Chaucer Insurance Company Designated Activity Company should pay Mrs W £1,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience in relation to this complaint. From this it may deduct the £250 previously offered if this has already been paid to Mrs W. It should also reimburse Mrs W for any outstanding items (including the garden gate, alarm

-- 3 of 4 --

system, snagging work and the garage door, if it has not already done so), though I note it has said it has already paid Mrs W for these items. And for the reasons I’ve given above, it must also include the cost to Mrs W of repointing the remaining boundary wall brickwork that was damaged in the flood, or it should offer to carry out the work for her. If Mrs W chooses to have the work carried out by her own contractors, then she should provide Chaucer with three quotes and it should pay the cheapest. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and I direct Chaucer Insurance Company Designated Activity Company to put things right as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs W to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Ifrah Malik Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --