DRN-6053965

The complaint Mr P and Mrs P have complained about how Covea Insurance plc (Covea) settled a claim under their home insurance policy. What happened Mr P and Mrs P made a claim for a water leak in their ensuite bathroom. Covea asked Mr P and Mrs P to get quotes for the work. Mr P and Mrs P found it difficult to obtain quotes. However, when they were able to obtain one, which was for about £13,000, Covea asked Mr P and Mrs P to provide a breakdown of the costs. Mr P and Mrs P’s contractor said they didn’t provide a breakdown of their costs. Covea costed the works and offered £9,183.93 (net of the excess) to settle the claim for the bathroom. Mr P and Mrs P complained. They said they needed the cash settlement to match their contractor’s quote for the bathroom work to be carried out on a like for like basis. When Covea replied to the complaint, it didn’t uphold it. It said the proposed settlement was calculated to cover all necessary components for a like for like reconstruction of the bathroom, including fixtures, fittings and labour. It said its scope of works aligned closely with those in Mr P and Mrs P’s documents. It said a full replacement of the bathroom could be achieved through the settlement offered. It said it remained open to reassessing its position if Mr P and Mrs P provided detailed invoices or itemised receipts that clearly demonstrated the settlement amount fell significantly short of the actual costs. When Mr P and Mrs P complained to this Service, our Investigator didn’t uphold it. She said Mr P and Mrs P had asked for a cash settlement, which Covea agreed to. The cash settlement covered all required works. There was about a £3,500 difference between what Covea offered and Mr P and Mrs P’s quote, but Mr P and Mrs P hadn’t provided evidence to show what they had been offered was unreasonable. She said, on balance, she was satisfied that what Covea had offered was reasonable. As Mr P and Mrs P didn’t agree, the complaint was referred to me.

-- 1 of 3 --

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 don’t uphold this complaint. I will explain why. I’m aware that Mr P and Mrs P have complained on two occasions to Covea about their claim. They complained about the delay in them being paid a cash settlement, including that a company working for Covea turned down the claim at one stage. Covea then agreed to settle the claim and said it would pay a cash settlement. Mr P and Mrs P also complained about the settlement offered by Covea, as they said this wasn’t enough for the work to be carried out. When Mr P and Mrs P brought their complaint to this Service, it primarily focussed on the cash settlement offered. However, I am aware of these issues they have raised about the impact on them because of how the claim has been handled. Covea asked Mr P and Mrs P to obtain quotes for the reinstatement work. I can see from the records that Mr P and Mrs P found it difficult to find a contractor that was willing to provide a quote. When Mr P and Mrs P were able to provide a quote, this listed the items covered by the quote and the total for the work, but the contractor declined to provide a breakdown of the costs. I’m aware Mr P and Mrs P have said it was unreasonable for Covea to ask on a few occasions for a breakdown of the costs when they had already explained their contractor wouldn’t provide it. However, I don’t think it’s unusual or unreasonable for an insurer to require a detailed breakdown to assess issues such as how the costs were attributed to the materials and labour. As Mr P and Mrs P were unable to provide this information, Covea made a cash settlement offer based on its own assessment of the costs. To do this, it prepared and costed a scope of works. I’ve looked at that scope of works and the costs within it. Based on what I’ve seen, what it covers is very similar to Mr P and Mrs P’s quote, including identical branded fixtures and fittings. I’ve also looked online at some of those items. From what I could see, the cost of those items as listed in the scope of works seemed to be based on prices available to the general public. In terms of the labour, this is more difficult to compare, in part because Mr P and Mrs P’s contractor wouldn’t provide a detailed breakdown. But I can see from its records that Covea provided an uplift to its rates to take into account that Mr P and Mrs P would be paying the contractor themselves. It also took into account VAT. So, I think Covea took a reasonable approach to deciding what it considered an appropriate cash settlement. I also think it was reasonable that when Covea replied to the complaint that it said it was still willing to consider further evidence, such as detailed invoices or itemised receipts, if Mr P and Mrs P wished to provide this. I’m aware that Mr P and Mrs P have more recently provided Covea with a further quote for the work. However, I haven’t considered that as part of this complaint as it wasn’t information available to Covea at the time it responded to the complaint. I’m also mindful that earlier in the claim Mr P and Mrs P complained about delays, including that, at one stage, a company working for Covea declined it. Covea responded to Mr P and Mrs P’s concerns by reviewing the claim again. It then accepted the claim and looked to settle it. I think that was fair in the circumstances.

-- 2 of 3 --

Having looked at what happened, I don’t uphold this complaint or require Covea to do anything else in relation to it. Based on what I’ve seen, I think Covea offered a fair cash settlement for the bathroom repair work. My final decision For the reasons I have given, it is my final decision that this complaint is not upheld. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P and Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Louise O'Sullivan Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --