DRN-6173190

The complaint Mr A and Mrs A have complained that Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd (‘Accredited’) unfairly dealt with a claim under their home insurance policy. What happened Mr A and Mrs A made a claim for storm damage to their roof. Accredited sent a surveyor to assess the damage. It then offered a cash settlement for the claim. Mr A and Mrs A complained. They were concerned about delays in progressing their claim. They also said Accredited should have dealt with the claim on a non-fault basis and they said they shouldn’t have had to pay the excess as they had provided evidence that debris from the neighbour’s property had caused the damage. When Accredited replied, it explained the timeframe in which the surveyor visited and that it had then received the surveyor’s report. It apologised that there seemed to have been some confusion about whether Mr A and Mrs A had agreed to a cash settlement during the visit. It made a cash settlement offer shortly after the visit, which Mr A and Mrs A rejected. Mr A and Mrs A then provided it with quotes and agreement was reached on a cash settlement. Accredited accepted that the claim had taken slightly longer to process, which was due to an influx of claims because of multiple storms. In terms of a non-fault claim, it said it was logged as a storm claim. If the neighbour’s roof caused the damage, this would only change the peril to accidental damage. The excess would still be the same. It said it was unable to comment on the legal side of the claim. It offered £150 compensation for the communication issues during the claim. Mr A and Mrs A complained to this Service. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. She said when Mr A and Mrs A raised the claim, Accredited immediately instructed a surveyor. However, due to the volume of storm claims, the visit couldn’t take place immediately. When the surveyor visited, it was recognised that temporary repairs were required, which Mr A and Mrs A arranged. Shortly after the visit, a cash settlement offer was made, which Mr A and Mrs A rejected. There was also a slight delay in providing Mr A and Mrs A with the scope of works. Accredited settled the claim based on Mr A and Mrs A’s quotes. She said Accredited had also fairly explained how the claim could be recorded and that this didn’t make any difference to the excess payable. She said the claim took about six weeks to settle and this included some minor delays. She said the £150 compensation Accredited offered was fair in the circumstances. As Mr A and Mrs A didn’t agree Accredited had done enough to acknowledge the impact on them of how their claim had been handled, the complaint was referred to me. 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

The relevant regulator’s rules say that insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly. So, I’ve kept this in mind when I’ve thought about this claim and complaint. Mr A and Mrs A first reported their claim to Accredited on 25 January 2025. Accredited instructed a surveyor the same day. The surveyor visited on 11 February. Accredited has accepted this was a delay but explained this was because of the number of storm claims it was dealing with at that time. I can understand this delay would have caused Mr A and Mrs A concern. But, I think Accredited progressed the claim as best it could in the circumstances and acknowledged that the visit was outside of its normal timescales. Mr A and Mrs A were also concerned by the surveyor’s visit and report. They asked for a copy of the surveyor’s report and were concerned by the lack of detail in it. Based on what I’ve seen, the report Mr A and Mrs A were provided with was the surveyor’s report. I’m aware they are concerned that the report included their own description of what happened when they reported the claim. They also said the age of their roof was wrong. I don’t think it’s unusual for a report to include what a policyholder described. However, I’m aware their concern was in the context of the report containing little other detail. So, I’ve thought about this. There is no set format in which a surveyor’s report should be laid out or what level of detail it should include. But, like Mr A and Mrs A, I note that it contains very little information. However, it included information that I consider to be key, which is that the surveyor decided there was sufficient reason to accept the storm claim. Ultimately, this was the claim outcome Mr A and Mrs A wanted. Accredited also seemed to decide it had sufficient reason, based on the surveyor’s findings, to settle the claim. Mr A and Mrs A were offered a cash settlement for their claim. I’m aware Mr A and Mrs A told Accredited that although the surveyor said a cash settlement had been discussed during the visit, this wasn’t the case. When Accredited responded to the complaint, it apologised for any confusion or miscommunication during the visit, which I think was fair. Mr A and Mrs A rejected the initial amount offered to settle the claim. I’m aware Mr A and Mrs A wanted Accredited to provide them with its costed scope of works. However, it wasn’t required to do this as it was commercially sensitive information. The following day, Mr A and Mrs A provided their own quotes for the work. This was then passed to the surveyor to consider. After some chasing by Mr A and Mrs A, Accredited then settled the claim based on the quotes provided by them. So, Accredited took into account Mr A and Mrs A’s concerns and their evidence of how much it would cost to complete the works. I also wouldn’t necessarily expect an insurer immediately to settle a claim based on quotes provided by a policyholder. Insurers normally carry out a range of checks to decide if the quotes represent a fair settlement. Overall, I think how Accredited settled the claim was fair. I’m aware that while Mr A and Mrs A were waiting for the decision about their claim they were also concerned about the ongoing damage to their home. It’s my understanding that they arranged some temporary repairs, which Accredited then paid for as part of the settlement. I also haven’t seen evidence that Accredited didn’t cover all the damage that was the result of the storm when it covered the claim. So, I think that was fair. However, I will return to this issue when I think about compensation. Mr A and Mrs A also wanted the claim to be registered as a “non-fault claim”. They have said they provided Accredited with evidence to show the damage was caused by debris from their neighbour’s roof. Mr A and Mrs A seem to be arguing that it shouldn’t have been registered as a claim against them at all, but that even if it was necessary, they shouldn’t have had to pay the £400 excess. They wanted the excess to be refunded to them. So, I’ve thought about this.

-- 2 of 3 --

For Accredited to deal with what happened, Mr A and Mrs A needed to make a claim for an insured peril under the policy. Accredited were then obliged to make a record of that claim. When Mr A and Mrs A took out the policy, they agreed to pay an excess each time they made a claim. Based on the information provided, Accredited decided what happened could be considered under the storm peril. Accredited later said it could potentially have been considered as accidental damage. For a storm or accidental damage claim the excess was the same, £400. It was fair for Accredited to require them to pay the excess as that was part of the claim process. In some circumstances, an insurer might identify that a third-party was responsible for the damage and seek to recover the costs it has paid out on the claim. But, it is for an insurer to decide whether to do this and it can be a lengthy process. The policyholder would still normally need to pay the excess, although it might later be returned to them if the third-party cost recovery is successful. The claim would also remain on the policyholder’s record, as they would still have made a claim under the policy. Based on what I’ve seen, I think Accredited was fair in how it registered the claim and by requiring Mr A and Mrs A to pay the excess. I’ve also thought about compensation. Accredited has accepted there were some delays and miscommunication during the claim. The claim was registered on 25 January and the cash settlement was agreed on 10 March. This was a period of 45 days or about six weeks. I wouldn’t generally expect a claim of this type to be immediately settled. I think it’s normal to send a surveyor and for a decision then to be made about whether to accept the claim. I’ve also taken into account that a claim incident like this is likely to cause distress and inconvenience to a policyholder regardless of how it is handled. But, I’m aware Mr A and Mrs A were concerned about ongoing damage to their home and that they had to chase for responses on several occasions. Accredited offered £150 compensation for the issues identified during the claim. Thinking about this, I think that was fair in the circumstances and is in line with the amount of compensation I would normally expect. I don’t require Accredited to pay any further compensation. As a result, I don’t uphold this complaint or require Accredited to do anything else in relation to it. 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 A and Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Louise O'Sullivan Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --