DRN-6316355

The complaint Mrs A complains about the way Ageas Insurance Limited (‘Ageas’) handled a subsidence claim she made on a property insurance policy. What happened Mrs A is one of three leaseholders who are beneficiaries under an insurance policy underwritten by another insurer, who I will refer to as “N” in this decision. The freeholder is the named policyholder of the policy. Mrs A raised a claim to N in July 2024 after noticing cracks to the walls in her property. N carried out investigations into the claim and appointed a building surveyor to carry out a site inspection. The subsequent report ultimately concluded that there was downward movement due to an escape of water at the property. And the report also noted that there were external cracks visible on the building from 2017 visible on street view images. N then said they were declining to cover the claim in March 2025 and that Mrs A would need to redirect the claim to Ageas, who were her insurers in 2017/18, as N felt the evidence showed the subsidence had occurred prior to the policy being taken out with them. Mrs A made contact with Ageas and asked them to liaise with N to determine who would be dealing with the claim. By late March 2025, Ageas’s loss adjusters were appointed to handle the notification, and they began their investigations. By May 2025, Mrs A confirmed that the local water board were attending to complete a CCTV survey of the property’s drains. Mrs A continued chasing Ageas for information for several weeks and Ageas’s loss adjusters advised that as the potential claim was from a policy over seven years old; there was a considerable amount of information for them to consider. By mid-June 2025, Ageas said that the damage had been notified in 2024 and under the Association of British Insurer’s (‘ABI’) Domestic Subsidence Agreement, they understood that N should be dealing with the claim and not them. By July 2025 Ageas requested further information, including what type of policy Mrs A held with N, whether the damage had been ongoing since 2017 and whether a pre-purchase survey was completed. Mrs A provided her response to Ageas’s loss adjusters before the end of July 2025 but there were then further requests from Mrs A for an update throughout the period to mid-October 2025. By that point, Mrs A had raised a complaint as she was dissatisfied with the delays in progressing the claim. Ageas’s loss adjusters issued a final response in November 2025 which recognised there had been delays and awarded £500 compensation. In November 2025 Mrs A asked about her further losses in respect of the claim as a tenant had moved out of the property due to the damage, and in December 2025 Ageas maintained that N should be dealing with the claim. In December 2025, Mrs A brought the complaint about both insurers to this Service. I issued a provisional decision on the complaint, and I said the following:

-- 1 of 3 --

“I first want to acknowledge that I’ve intentionally summarised Mrs A’s complaint in a lot less detail than she has presented it. No discourtesy is meant by this, and I want to assure her that I have read and considered everything submitted in its entirety. However, as an informal dispute resolution service, our role is to focus on the main issues of a complaint in order to reach a fair and reasonable outcome overall. And this means I have only focused my decision on what I consider to be the key points of this dispute. I also want to set out what I will be looking at as part of my decision. I’m aware Mrs A has brought a separate complaint against her current insurer which this Service is also considering separately. And that means I won't be making any findings about that insurer’s actions in this decision and will only be considering what Ageas did. However, as both complaints arise out of the same set of background events, there will be instances where I refer to background information that overlaps the complaints. From the evidence I've seen on this complaint, Mrs A first reported cracking at the property in July 2024. At that time the property was insured by N who investigated the claim but ultimately concluded that the damage was likely to have occurred before their policy began. They declined the claim and directed Mrs A to Ageas who had insured the property previously. I recognise that this left Mrs A in a difficult position. However, I don't think it was unreasonable for Ageas to conclude that the claim should be dealt with by the insurer on cover when the damage was first reported. Ageas identified that, under the ABI’s Domestic Subsidence Agreement, one of the considerations for who should be responsible for a claim is by looking at the date of notification of the claim. So, Ageas considered that, even if N felt the damage may have been visible earlier, that did not mean the claim should be dealt with by them. I’ve also seen the report which was provided during the investigations, and while it notes that cracking was visible on external images from around 2017, the report does not establish when the subsidence movement actually occurred. So, in the absence of clear evidence that the insured damage happened during the period Ageas insured the property, I don't think it would be fair reasonable for me to require them to accept the claim. However, while I do not find that Ageas is responsible for the subsidence claim, I do recognise that they should have dealt with matters more promptly. Mrs A contacted them in March 2025 after N declined to cover the claim. And while Ageas were entitled to consider the information they received, the timeline and evidence I've been provided with demonstrates that Mrs A had to repeatedly chase them for updates over several months before they confirmed their position. Having considered all the evidence, I'm satisfied Ageas caused unnecessary delays and service failings, and they have accepted this. There are numerous examples of missed opportunities and poor communication throughout the claim, which would have caused understandable upset, distress and inconvenience to Mrs A. It therefore follows that I’m satisfied a compensation award is appropriate here. I've weighed up Mrs A’s account, the available evidence, and the length of time the claim took. Overall, I think the £500 Ageas has already paid goes some way to recognising the distress and inconvenience caused – but I’m not persuaded it fully reflects the overall impact of their service failings. In particular, I’ve taken into account the length of time Mrs A was left uncertain about the claim, and the repeated delays in providing updates. Given Mrs A’s specific situation and concerns over financial losses, I think this caused her additional upset over a prolonged period. On balance, I think a

-- 2 of 3 --

slightly higher award of £850 is more in line with what I would consider to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this particular complaint. I appreciate this may not be the level of compensation Mrs A had hoped for, and it may not ultimately change matters for her, given the larger concerns over the claim itself, including her concerns over N’s decline of the claim. But as I said previously, I am only considering Ageas’s actions here in this decision. And ultimately, I consider my award to be in line with the level of compensation appropriate to these issues, and I’m satisfied this produces a fair and reasonable outcome in this particular complaint.” As both parties have now had the opportunity to provide a response, I will set out my final decision below. 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. As neither party has made any further submissions or provided further evidence for me to consider, I see no reason to change my provisional findings. So, my final decision is the same as my provisional decision and for the same reasons. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. I direct Ageas Insurance Limited to: • Pay Mrs A £850 compensation – inclusive of any sums previously raised. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs A to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Stephen Howard Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --