DRN-6035400

The complaint Miss J and Mr T have complained about a claim on their building warranty being declined. Society of Lloyd’s (SOL) is the respondent insurer. What happened Miss J and Mr T noticed a bow in the retaining garden wall at their property. They made a claim on their warranty. The claim was considered under the structural insurance section of cover. It was declined on the basis the wall in question doesn’t provide support to the structure. Miss J and Mr T, for a number of reasons, felt that decision was unfair. They complained and when Society of Lloyd’s wouldn’t change the claim outcome they brought their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our Investigator considered the policy wording alongside the other available evidence provided by both parties. She thought the claim had been declined fairly and reasonably. Miss J and Mr T said there was a proven track record of incorrect assessments of their claims, the investigation of the wall was inadequate, photos show the garden wall is connected to the house, it’s not fair to apply a narrow definition to the phrase ‘providing support’, the wording is ambiguous and should be construed in their favour, there was a clear defect here, the defect was also causing a safety hazard with a gas main (with the policy offering certain cover in respect of the physical health and safety of the occupants). Our Investigator provided a further response addressing Miss J and Mr T’s concerns. They said they wanted 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. Having done so I think SOL’s decision was fair and reasonable. I’ve set out my reasons for that below. I appreciate Miss J and Mr T had a poor previous claim experience. However, that does not mean there is a pattern of failure or that the same assessor shouldn’t be used to consider future claims. I’m not persuaded that the investigation into the wall was inadequate. It is quite common for an issue like this to be considered in a non-invasive way initially. An expert may then feel further assessment is necessary – or they may think the reasonable claim outcome can be reached based on what is known. That is what happened here. It then turns for that claim outcome to be challenged by the warrantyholder if they wish, and where appropriate, for a complaint about that outcome to be made.

-- 1 of 3 --

I note photos show the wall meets the house. I accept Miss J and Mr T’s explanation that the wall and house sit on the same shared footing. But the policy needs to be considered to see whether that ‘connection’ is sufficient to say the claim should be accepted. The policy SOL is the respondent for, like many similar one on the market, is heavily dependant upon certain definitions. And also like many similar policies – many of the given definitions contain words and phrases which are subject of their own definition. So whilst I know Miss J and Mr T have pointed to different definitions referring differently to similar things, that does not create an ambiguity. Rather when read in sequence, rather than in isolation, the policy provides clear detail about what is covered. So the policy promises, where the “Housing Unit” has been affected by “Major Damage” to cover the cost of putting things right. Both terms are defined in the policy. The definition for Housing Unit explains that phrase does include retaining walls where they are part of or provide support to “the Structure”. The first question then is, is the wall part of or providing support for the Structure? Other questions will only then become relevant if the answer to this one is ‘yes’. Miss J and Mr T have shown the wall meets the house. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it is part of or providing support for the Structure, which is more narrowly defined than just being ‘the house’. The definition of Structure includes things like the foundations, but also “load bearing retaining walls”. The policy does not define what is meant by “load bearing”, nor the phrase “providing support”. But a policy can’t possibly define every term used. When no specific definition is applied, the word or term is given its everyday meaning. So the retaining wall in question here will only be part of the Housing Unit, and therefore potential covered if there is Major Damage, if it is part of or providing support to part of the Structure. Considering all of the available detail, I’m not satisfied that a garden retaining wall, that merely meets the wall of a house and sits on a shared footing, can reasonably be said to be part of or providing support to the Structure (as defined). If the garden wall fails then it may allow soil to fall in the area of the corner of the house. So the retaining wall supports the soil and arguably offers the house some protection – but it doesn’t provide support to the house, nor importantly to the parts of the house that form the definition of Structure. This retaining wall does not, for example, support another load-bearing retaining wall ie without this retaining wall a load-bearing one would suffer. Nor does it seem to me to be part of, perhaps a continuance of, the external wall of the house which is likely load bearing and may be retaining. The footing may be shared/continuous, but the garden wall merely meets the house wall, it isn’t tied into it. The photos satisfy me that the retaining garden wall is a separate construction. All of which means that I’m satisfied that the conclusion reached by SOL, that the claim had been fairly declined, is fair and reasonable. In short the garden retaining wall does not reasonably fall to be considered as a part of the Housing Unit – as such even if there is a defect which is causing Major Damage to the retaining wall, the warranty will not respond. My decision here considers the claim as made and declined under Section 4.3 of the warranty. There is cover at 5.2 regarding physical health and safety of occupants. I note Miss J and Mr T’s comment about the risk posed to them by the gas main situated at the base of the retaining wall. If they wish to make a claim under that cover, they should follow the usual process. But I would expect that any consideration of that claim would also depend on the relevant policy terms, including the definitions.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t make any award against Society of Lloyd’s. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss J and Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Fiona Robinson Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --