DRN-6290721

The complaint Miss M complains that AXA Insurance UK Plc (‘AXA’) refused to cover her claim for damage caused to her property during the installation of a new heating system. What happened Miss M had contents cover underwritten by AXA. In or around September 2025, her landlord, a local authority, installed a new central heating system in her house. Miss M says that during this work her home suffered damage; a hole was drilled in the ceiling, paintwork was damaged, the walls behind the radiators were left in a “mess”, and floor coverings (linoleum and carpets) were damaged. When she approached AXA, in December 2025, to ask about whether they’d cover this damage, she was told that most of it wouldn’t be classed as contents, and damage to the carpets, which would be classed as contents, wouldn’t be covered because of the following exclusion: “… your policy won’t cover loss, damage, liability, costs, or expenses for claims in the following circumstances: … • damage or liability arising out of the activities of contractors • damage due to faulty design or workmanship …” The call handler suggested she raise a liability claim with the landlord and put her through to the department dealing with Legal Expenses Insurance (LEI) claims. Miss M was unhappy. She said her home had been “wrecked”, and she asked for her premiums to be refunded. In response to her complaint, AXA reiterated its position on the claim. So, Miss M referred her complaint to this service. Our Investigator didn’t uphold it. She said Miss M doesn’t have buildings cover, only contents, and although carpets can be considered as contents, damage caused by contractors is not covered under the policy. She also said that the relevant exclusion was clear and prominent within the policy documentation. Miss M didn’t accept that. In summary, she said: • carpets are ordinarily treated as contents, not buildings; the Investigator’s failure to recognise this suggests a default tendency to accept the insurer’s interpretation. • the work was carried out by council staff, not by contractors, and tenants have no control over the workmanship of council staff nor whether work will be carried out by staff or contractors. • there was no ‘faulty workmanship’ as ordinarily defined. • the policy documentation did not highlight exclusions relating to carpets, walls, or decoration; AXA accepted her premiums while failing to highlight exclusions that would materially affect her cover. • AXA has not acted in accordance with its obligations under the FCA’s Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS).

-- 1 of 3 --

• the broader context of her vulnerability should be considered. Miss M also expressed dissatisfaction with what had occurred when she spoke with the provider of her LEI cover and concern that the policy had been mis-sold to her. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to review afresh and decide. Although I’ve summarised what I consider to be the key points of Miss M’s response to the Investigator, before I go on, I’d like to assure her that I’ve read what she’s said in its entirety and listened to the relevant call recordings. 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, although I’m sorry this will come as a disappointment to Miss M, I’ve reached the same conclusion as the Investigator did and for similar reasons. At the time of the events complained about Miss M had contents (including accidental damage) cover underwritten by AXA, not buildings cover. I’ve seen the renewal documentation sent to Miss M, dated 6 March 2025, and I’m satisfied that this was clear about the type of cover she was getting. This summary documentation also made it clear that it’s important to read the full policy booklet and provided a link to the same. Within the ‘Insurance Product Information Document’, included with the renewal documentation, under the heading “What’s not insured?” it stated, “Damage or liability caused by contractors”. Turning to the full policy booklet, this explained what’s considered accidental damage: “A sudden, unexpected and unforeseen event that results in physical damage. The damage must be caused by you, your guests, Staff, a Third Party (excluding contractors) or Wild Animals.” (Emphasis added) The policy also included a definition of “Contents”. This included “Fittings”, defined as “Removable items that are attached to the interior or exterior of your Home and Outbuildings (e.g. shelving, curtain rails, carpets).” (Emphasis added) Having considered the wording of the policy I find that Miss M’s damaged carpets do meet the policy definition of “Contents” but that the other damage she described when she spoke with AXA in December 2025 (to ceilings, walls, and paintwork), doesn’t. So, I agree with Miss M that carpets are contents in this case, not buildings, and that echoes the Investigator’s findings. However, I find that AXA are fairly relying on the general exclusion for “damage or liability arising out of the activities of contractors”. Although I appreciate that it was Miss M’s landlord who selected the workers who installed the new heating system, and that she had no part in appointing them, the damage was still caused by “the activities of contractors” and isn’t something she’s covered for under the policy. In short, I don’t think AXA has acted unfairly or unreasonably in declining to meet her claim. I appreciate that Miss M will be very disappointed about this, but I hope she’ll understand the reasons for my decision. For completeness, I note that, because of the outcome of this claim and others, Miss M has said that the policy was mis-sold to her. I’ve not considered this point. As an Investigator has already explained, Miss M would need to raise a separate complaint about mis-sale directly to the broker or insurer, depending on who she purchased the policy through, in the first instance. Similarly, I’ve not considered Miss M’s concerns about what happened when she spoke with the provider of her LEI cover. AXA does not underwrite Miss M’s LEI cover and so any complaint she has about that cover would need to be directed to the relevant

-- 2 of 3 --

business and dealt with separately. Our Investigator can guide Miss M as to her next steps if she wishes to pursue these separate complaints. My final decision For the reasons set out above I don’t uphold Miss M’s complaint about AXA Insurance UK Plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Beth Wilcox Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --