DRN-6025088

The complaint Mr T complains about the response of British Gas Insurance Limited (‘British Gas’) to a home emergency insurance claim. British Gas are the underwriters (insurers) of this policy. Any reference to them in this decision can be interpreted as covering the actions of any agents they’ve confirmed were working on their behalf. Mr T has been represented in this complaint by a family member. As Mr T is the eligible complainant, I will mainly refer to him in my decision. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to Mr T and British Gas. I won’t repeat in detail what’s already known to both parties. Instead, in my decision I’ll focus on the reasons for reaching the outcome that I have. Mr T made a claim on his home emergency insurance. He was unhappy with the actions (service provided) by British Gas when responding to that claim and he raised a complaint. In particular, he alleged an apparent disregard for health and safety and said damage was caused to his property. Mr T previously had his property fumigated shortly before this claim was made, due to a nearby rat infestation. British Gas partially upheld the complaint and awarded £50 compensation in recognition of inconvenience caused. They also said they’d be reinforcing their “hygiene and safety protocols with our engineers and improving our communication processes to ensure such issues do not recur.” Unhappy, Mr T referred his complaint to our Service for an independent review. Our Investigator recommended that the compensation award be increased by £150. As the dispute remains unresolved, it’s been referred to me for a final 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. Our Service is an alternative, informal dispute resolution service. Although I may not address every point raised as part of this complaint - I have considered them. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party – it simply reflects the informal nature of our Service. I’m very sorry to hear of Mr T’s health vulnerabilities and I thank him for sharing that information with our Service. I’m also sorry to hear of the mental impact this complaint event has had on Mr T’s wellbeing. The scope of this decision

-- 1 of 3 --

This decision will only consider the impact of British Gas’ actions on the eligible complainant - Mr T. I make this point as Mr T’s representative has placed heavy emphasis on the direct impact on them and the resultant extra impact on Mr T: “In terms of damages, whilst no-one has died or become ill from Q Fever, as the carer of the policy holder whose house it is I have suffered psychological harm. It has required attention from the NHS. I am fully aware that as the Representative of the policyholder I can expect nothing from British Gas through yourselves as you work on for the insured and not their agent. However, psychological injury is harmful as much as that directly from a pathogen and it has very much diminished my ability to care which in turn has a significant, adverse impact on the policyholder. During a very difficult time, I have not been able to do as much as I would have liked for him as a result…” As British Gas have conceded that there were service failings when responding to this claim, I only need to decide if British Gas’ offer and actions to put things right, goes far enough to recognise the impact on Mr T. My key findings I broadly agree with the findings our Investigator reached for the below main reasons: • It will have no doubt been very upsetting for Mr T that his wishes and conditions around access to his property were not adhered to by British Gas. I find much of the annoyance, loss of expectation and upset caused were avoidable by British Gas. • Any reference to agents of British Gas effectively ‘trespassing’ on his property because of any non-adherence to the access conditions is beyond the scope of this decision. I make no findings on this point and Mr T can take independent legal advice on what (may) constitute a civil matter. • There likely would have been reasonable opportunities for Mr T’s representative to mitigate the annoyance and subsequent worry caused by challenging the behaviour witnessed or revoking access. However, I’ve kept in mind the nature of this claim (an emergency) and the need for a speedy resolution to the emergency. I’ve also noted Mr T’s comments that any internal damage (contamination) may have already aken place when it was realised his access wishes/conditions weren’t being closely followed. • I’m very pleased to see Mr T has told us “…no one had symptoms of a physiological disease carried by rats like hantavirus, leptospirosis or Q Fever…”. This will indeed have been a worry for Mr T, particularly given his medical vulnerabilities. This also means, based on the evidence presented, that the impact here was largely psychological (worry), rather than a direct physical impact. I’ve also kept in mind the other service failings that Mr T argues could’ve had serious consequences (the wrench issue for example), but fortunately they didn’t. Mr T has referenced the burden of proof and the likely cost of lab-backed tests that would show whether the contamination that has been alleged has occurred. Such a course of action would be Mr T’s own decision to make, but I won’t be directing British Gas to carry out any such tests. I find Mr T’s testimony that fortunately no adverse symptoms or diseases have occurred to be sufficient. In any case, any such tests would generally need to be contemporaneous. British Gas have said: “Our HomeCare policy covers repairs and replacements to heating, plumbing, and electrics. It does not include cleaning or decontamination unless British

-- 2 of 3 --

Gas has directly caused the contamination. In this case, there is no evidence that our engineers introduced any hazardous substances or pathogens into the home, nor did their actions result in measurable damage or contamination.” I consider their position reasonable, in line with the policy terms and I won’t be directing British Gas to cover the cost (£400) of another fumigation of the property under the policy terms. • British Gas offered £50 compensation. I find that doesn’t go far enough to put things right. Having carefully considered the actual impact alongside our published guidelines on these types of awards – not what could’ve happened or didn’t happen as a result, I find the additional £150 recommended by our Investigator to be fair, reasonable and proportionate. This is mainly because much of the actual impact on Mr T was easily avoidable. I also find British Gas’ agreeing to reinforce their “hygiene and safety protocols with [their] engineers and improving [their] communication processes to ensure such issues do not recur” to be positive. In any case, our Service cannot direct a financial business as to training they deliver to staff, or their internal processes. • I’ve noted that part of this complaint related to the damage (staining) that occurred outside of Mr T’s property. I have incorporated the avoidable impact when deciding (above) what British Gas need to do to put things right. Since this complaint was referred, further discussions have taken place between Mr T and British Gas around resolving this point and I’m pleased to hear that. Any further offers made since complaint referral have not been considered as part of this decision. Putting things right British Gas Insurance Limited need to pay Mr T an additional £150 in recognition of their service failings. This will mean a total compensation award of £200, including the £50 offered in their final response letter dated 1 October 2025. If a cheque has earlier been issued and Mr T has chosen not to cash that cheque, he can speak to British Gas about reissuing it. My final decision My final decision is that I partially uphold this complaint. Subject to Mr T accepting the decision the deadline set below, I direct British Gas Insurance Limited to follow my direction as set out under the heading ‘Putting things right’. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Daniel O'Shea Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --