DRN-6323884

The complaint Mrs B complains about how a claim has been handled by U K Insurance Limited (UKI) on her buildings insurance policy. She’s also unhappy that her policy wasn’t renewed and she wasn’t aware. What happened Mrs B took out a buildings insurance policy with UKI in 2019. The policy automatically renewed up until 2023. In December 2022, Mrs B suffered from an escape of water. A further escape of water occurred in January 2023. To date, repairs haven’t been completed to her property. Following a further escape of water in January 2025, Mrs B became aware that her policy hadn’t renewed in November 2023. Mrs B raised a complaint about both the claim delays and the renewal of her policy. UKI didn’t uphold Mrs B’s complaint as they didn’t think they’d done anything wrong. Still unhappy, Mrs B brought the complaint to this service. Our investigator didn’t uphold Mrs B’s complaint. They agreed that they didn’t think UKI had done anything wrong. Mrs B appealed. She’s said the property is still going to take months to restore with her alternative accommodation running out. She also raised that she hasn’t been reimbursed some costs and doesn’t think the third escape of water would have happened had repairs been completed sooner. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to make a final decision. Because I disagreed with our investigator’s view, I issued a provisional decision in this case. This allowed both UKI and Mrs B a chance to provide further information or evidence and/or to comment on my thinking before I made my final decision. What I provisionally decided – and why I previously issued a provisional decision on this complaint as my findings were different from that of our investigator. In my provisional decision, I said: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I intend to uphold Mrs B’s complaint. When considering complaints such as this, I need to consider the relevant law, rules and industry guidelines. The relevant rules, set up by the Financial Conduct Authority, say that an insurer must deal with a claim promptly and fairly. So, I’ve thought about whether UKI acted in line with these requirements with how they handled Mrs B’s claim and renewal. At the outset I acknowledge that I’ve summarised her complaint in far less detail than Mrs B has, and in my own words. I’m not going to respond to every single point made. No discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. The rules that govern the Financial Ombudsman Service allow me to do this as it’s an informal dispute resolution service. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because

-- 1 of 4 --

I’ve overlooked it. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual point to be able to reach an outcome in line with my statutory remit. As a starting point, I need to set out the remit for this decision. I can only consider complaint points that have already been raised and reviewed by UKI. In response to our investigator’s outcome, Mrs B has raised concerns about the cash settlement figure she’s been offered. This hadn’t been raised with UKI and so isn’t included in this decision. She also raised about not being reimbursed for some electrical work she completed. Again, I can’t see that this has been raised with UKI and so it isn’t considered in this decision. I’ve separated Mrs B’s complaint points below for ease. Claim delays Whilst Mrs B had her buildings insurance with UKI, her contents insurance was with another insurer. As this was an escape of water claim, both insurers were involved in settling the claim. UKI sent a surveyor to Mrs B’s property at the start of the claim. They reported that Mrs B’s property was full of contents and until this had all been removed, it wouldn’t be possible to assess the buildings damage. The contents insurer were responsible for removing the contents from the property. UKI received confirmation in September 2024 that all contents had been removed from the property other than from the roof space. I’m satisfied that UKI aren’t responsible for any potential delays caused up until this point. Having reviewed the claim notes, I do think there were delays in getting the property ready for work to begin. This included dealing with a rodent infestation, the bedroom ceiling and mould issues. I think this likely caused several months of delays. Mrs B has been in alternative accommodation (AA). UKI were initially paying for the AA but the budget ran out in April 2024. The contents insurer then took over. However, their budget then ran out in December 2025. UKI has confirmed at this point they agreed to cover another six months’ worth of AA for Mrs B. I think this is fair and reasonable in the circumstances due to the delays caused. However, I appreciate the delays must have been frustrating for Mrs B. It’s meant she was out of her property for longer than needed. She also would have needed to contact UKI to discuss the claim. Although this is a distilled version of events, I’ve considered everything in the round and I think Mrs B has been caused considerable distress, upset and worry which has taken a lot of extra effort to sort out over several months. In line with our website guidelines, I’m intending to tell UKI to pay Mrs B £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the delays. Policy renewal Mrs B’s policy with UKI came to an end at her renewal in 2023. UKI has said that due to the condition of Mrs B’s property, they didn’t want to continue to provide her with cover. I don’t think it was unreasonable for UKI to use their commercial discretion to not offer Mrs B a renewal. UKI have sent me a screenshot which confirms they wrote to Mrs B to inform her of this in October 2023. Whilst Mrs B has said she didn’t receive it; I’m satisfied it was sent which is the limit of UKI’s responsibility. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think UKI has done anything wrong in relation to the renewal of the policy. So, I don’t think they need to do anything on this point.” I set out what I intended to direct UKI to do to put things right. And gave both parties the opportunity to send me any further information or comments they wanted me to consider

-- 2 of 4 --

before I issued my final decision. Responses to my provisional decision UKI accepted my provisional decision. Mrs B confirmed she didn’t agree with my provisional decision. She didn’t think the policy limits needed to be abided by and still didn’t think the UKI’s decision to not offer a renewal was fair. 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. I’ve thought carefully about the responses to my provisional decision. Having done so, while I appreciate it will come as a disappointment to Mrs B, my conclusions remain the same. I’ll explain why. Mrs B doesn’t think the policy limits on AA should be enforced. She’s said they’re arbitrary matters that businesses set for themselves. I don’t agree. The policy limits are set at the start of the policy. They’re part of the contract Mrs B has agreed to when taking out the policy. The policy limits set out the risk an insurer is willing to accept and form part of their pricing considerations. Mrs B has said she doesn’t agree the compensation is sufficient. She’s stated that the property was cleared of contents in May 2024 and not September 2024 as I set out in my provisional decision. I agree this is the case and it was a typo in my provisional decision. My provisional decision was based on the property being mostly cleared of contents in May 2024, with the final items being removed from the loft in September 2024. There was a dispute between the UKI and the contents insurer about removal of the contents in the loft. I appreciate the claim has been going on for a long period of time. The escape of water occurred in January 2023. UKI weren’t able to do anything until the property was cleared of contents. As a starting point, this took over a year. All this time Mrs B was in AA and her budget was being used. I’ve considered Mrs B’s comments but she hasn’t provided me with any new information that hadn’t already been considered in my provisional decision. So, I still think the compensation is fair for the same reasons. Mrs B doesn’t agree with the renewal not being offered as she says the condition of the property was as a result of UKI’s actions. I don’t agree. The policy expired in November 2023. At this point, UKI hadn’t started any work on Mrs B’s property. This was because Mrs B’s contents insurer were still working to remove the contents. UKI didn’t want to offer a renewal following the loss adjuster’s report and the condition of Mrs B’s property. So, my outcome on this point remains the same for the same reasons. I’m very sorry that my decision doesn’t bring Mrs B more welcome news at what I can see is a very difficult time for her. But based on the responses I find no reason to deviate from my provisional decision. Putting things right To put things right, UKI should pay Mrs B £500 compensation for the trouble and upset caused.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I uphold this complaint and direct U K Insurance Limited to put things right by doing as I’ve said above, if they haven’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Anthony Mullins Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --