DRN-6249497

The complaint Mr Z complains about the actions of ALLPROPERTYCLAIMS LIMITED (“APC”) after he instructed it to assist him with a claim he made under his home insurance policy. What happened In November 2024, Mr Z engaged the services of APC to assist him with a claim he made under his home insurance policy. In February 2025, Mr Z terminated his contract with APC because he was unhappy with how it was handling his claim. APC sent Mr Z an invoice for around £10,000 which it said was to cover costs and time spent on his claim up until the point of the termination. Mr Z disputed the invoice, and APC said it would take legal action if it wasn’t paid. After Mr Z asked the Financial Ombudsman Service to consider the matter, APC offered to reduce the amount of its invoice by more than half. Mr Z made a counteroffer, and APC said it was willing to reduce the invoice to £2,500. But Mr Z said he would only pay this after APC provided a drying certificate. APC said it would only produce documents after it had received its fee. So, the dispute wasn’t resolved. APC said it didn’t believe Mr Z’s complaint fell within the Financial Ombudsman Service’s jurisdiction. However, an ombudsman decided we did have the power to look into all of the concerns Mr Z had raised. So, our investigator looked into the merits of Mr Z’s complaint. Our investigator thought APC’s offer to reduce its invoice to £2,500 and release the drying certificate once it had received payment from Mr Z was fair. However, Mr Z disagreed. He said he was prepared to settle at £1,500 (inclusive of VAT) to reflect the work carried out. He said he would be willing to pay an additional £1,000 if APC provided a clear and complete drying certificate and supporting evidence to demonstrate that the drying works were properly carried out. So, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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’ve reached broadly the same conclusions as our investigator. I’ll explain why. I’ve considered everything Mr Z has told our service, but I’ll be keeping my findings to what I believe to be the crux of his complaint. I wish to reassure Mr Z I’ve read and considered everything he’s sent in, but if I haven’t mentioned a particular point or piece of evidence, it isn’t because I haven’t seen it or thought about it. It’s just that I don’t feel I need to reference it to explain my decision. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy and is a reflection of the informal nature of our service. When Mr Z instructed APC to assist him with his claim, he agreed to its terms of business. This document sets out the services APC would provide in respect of Mr Z’s insurance claim.

-- 1 of 3 --

These included attending Mr Z’s premises to survey the damage and preparing a detailed claims submission, with a schedule of works, to be submitted to the insurer. It was agreed that APC would pursue and negotiate the settlement of Mr Z’s claim. Following settlement, APC would nominate contractors to carry out reinstatement and drying works and supply all materials or, if it was unable to arrange any portion of the works with the contractors, APC would pay Mr Z Cash in Lieu of the works. When Mr Z told APC he had decided to terminate his contract with it he said this was because of ongoing delays, a lack of proactive communication, lack of accountability and an overall dissatisfaction with the handling of his claim. Having reviewed the timeline provided by APC, I’m not persuaded APC was responsible for any significant delays in the progression of Mr Z’s claim. I also can’t see any significant gaps in APC’s communication with Mr Z. APC has provided a report to show that a specialist contractor attended Mr Z’s property to carry out mitigation work, including mould remediation in early January 2025. I can also see that a surveyor had attended and prepared a schedule of work. This was submitted to the insurer and was awaiting its approval when Mr Z decided to terminate his contract with APC, less than three months after engaging its services. The terms of business say that APC would waive its fee if Mr Z instructed it in the performance of all of the services set out above. It goes on to say Mr Z would be liable to pay APC’s fees in the following circumstances: i. “In the event that the insurer agrees a Settlement and you decide not to carry out the drying and/or the reinstatement works ii. If you appoint your own suppliers or contractors to carry out said works or carry out works yourself iii. You request or accept monies from the Settlement directly from the insurer/loss adjuster or broker.” I appreciate that a settlement hadn’t yet been agreed when Mr Z terminated his contract with APC. However, I’m not persuaded this means APC wasn’t entitled to charge Mr Z a fee for the works that had already been carried out on his claim. The terms of business allowed APC to charge Mr Z £140 per hour (plus VAT) for work carried out by it plus the value of any works carried out by its contractors. APC has provided evidence to show that it carried out 34.4 hours of work which means it was entitled to charge Mr Z £5,779.20 (including VAT) for its time. I’ve also seen an invoice from the contractors who carried out drying, mould assessment and remediation works for £4,996.55 (including VAT). This means APC was entitled to charge Mr Z the £10,775.75 it invoiced him for. APC has offered to reduce its fee to £2,500 (including VAT). However, Mr Z feels this is still too high. He says this offer from APC was discussed in the context of his willingness to settle at that level on the basis that a drying certificate of meaningful evidential value would be provided. I can see that Mr Z said he wanted to see a drying certificate before he’d pay the full £2,500 APC said it would accept. APC said it would only provide a drying certificate to Mr Z once it had received payment from him. Both parties have confirmed that Mr Z prevented APC’s contractors from taking final moisture readings before they removed the drying equipment from his property. And APC has since clarified that Mr Z’s property wasn’t certified as dry for this reason. It says the document it will issue upon receipt of payment from Mr Z would

-- 2 of 3 --

confirm the dates the drying equipment was installed and removed, along with the works undertaken. I appreciate there was some confusion here, but it was Mr Z’s decision to terminate its contract with APC before the property had been declared dry. He’s also confirmed that he wouldn’t allow the contractors to take final moisture readings and photographs before they removed the drying equipment. So, I can’t hold APC responsible for there being no certificate to show the property was dry. I understand Mr Z doesn’t feel sufficient work was carried out on his property to warrant £2,500. He’s also commented that there were some issues with the drying equipment and a non-functioning machine wasn’t replaced for about a week. But Mr Z has accepted that some work was carried out by the contractors nominated by APC. APC has provided evidence to show it was charged almost £5,000 for this work. As Mr Z terminated the contract with APC, it isn’t in a position to recoup any costs from the insurer. APC has also shown that it spent around 34 hours working on Mr Z’s claim. And it’s offered to reduce its fee to less than a quarter of what it was entitled to charge Mr Z under the terms of the contract. So, I’m not persuaded that APC needs to reduce its fee any further. I appreciate my answer will be disappointing for Mr Z. But having considered the information available to me, I think APC’s offer to reduce its fee to £2,500 is reasonable. Putting things right APC should: • Reduce its fee to £2,500 (including VAT). • Provide a certificate confirming the dates the drying equipment was installed and removed, along with the works undertaken once it has received payment of the above fee from Mr Z. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold Mr Z’s complaint and direct ALLPROPERTYCLAIMS LIMITED to put things right by doing as I’ve said above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr Z to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Anne Muscroft Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --