Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited · DRN-5980953

The complaint Mr D has complained that Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited (LV) declined a claim he made for an escape of water (EOW) under a home insurance policy. What happened Mr D arranged for an ensuite bathroom at his bungalow to be replaced. While a contractor was carrying out strip out works, they discovered extensive water damage to joists underneath the shower area which had spread to joists beneath other rooms. Mr D was advised by the contractor to contact LV. On review, LV declined the claim as it said the cause of damage had occurred gradually due to silicone failure around the ensuite shower tray. LV’s policy excluded cover in these circumstances. Mr D had provided LV with letters from two contractors who had given their opinion as to the possible cause of damage. They both said the likely cause of damage was due to a leaking wastepipe beneath the shower tray. But LV didn’t change its decision. So Mr D asked us to look at his complaint. One of our Investigators didn’t recommend the complaint should be upheld. She found the evidence and opinion from LV’s appointed contractor reasonably showed that the damage had occurred for some time, was caused by a failure in the silicone around the shower tray , and there were visible signs of damage some time before Mr D made his claim. Mr D disagrees and wants an ombudsman 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. Mr D’s policy with LV provides cover for specified insured perils. These are one off sudden events such as a storm, flood, fire or an escape of water. LV doesn’t provide cover for damage caused by gradual wear and tear. This isn’t unusual as all insurers provide such an exclusion under standard home insurance policies. Our role isn’t to decide a cause of damage, but to review the evidence available and decide if an insurer reached its decision reasonably and in line with the policy. Mr D provided letters from two contractors setting out the possible cause of the damage. LV’s appointed contractor provided a report with photos. Key comments from Mr D’s contractors are: Contractor One: “When we removed the old shower tray we found very little surface water beneath it lying on top of the chipboard floor boards, however we did see evidence of historical

-- 1 of 4 --

damage. On removing the shower tray, we noted the drain pipework broke easily compared to when one normally breaks out a shower tray. We inspected further and removed the shower cubicle tiled walls and went back to the original stud walls. We also removed the chipboard floor boards so we could inspect the pipework and joists below. The joists below the shower area of the ensuite extended below the bedroom and main bathroom floor and heavily corroded below where the shower sat, next to the associated drain pipe from the shower waste”…. The contractor said there was a little amount of water sitting above the floorboards which could be contributed to a small leak in silicone, but said this damage was limited, could not have gone on for long, and was not linked to the extensive damp and rot damage to the joists. The contractor concluded; “In our professional opinion it would not be possible for the silicone seal in the shower enclosure to have failed to such an extent to cause such a level of corrosion to the timber joists without causing the same or more damage and rot to the surrounding wall and the floorboards above the timber joists. We see damage caused from perished seals on a weekly basis and even if it had never been sealed. It would have taken many years to lead to this level of damage to the points closest to the leak prior to it reaching the joists.” The second contractor wrote; “I found the floor joists below the ensuite to be totally rotten and in need of replacing. The floor boards above showed some signs of leakage over the years but nothing that would indicate a leak above the floor from the shower that would result in the damage to the joists to that extent. I found some water damage and rot in the stud walls surrounding the ensuite too. The damage I seen above the floor I think would be from in the past water leaking through the seal which is normal and is why from time to time you might need to reseal the silicone but looks like damp travelling from the moist timber joists below. The only thing I can think of that would have caused this damage would be a Ieak from the drain pipe from the shower as the water pipes were all intact. lt would have taken a lot of time for this to develop.” So both contractors were of the view that there was some minor water damage above the floorboards caused by a leak in the silicone. But both thought the cause of damage to the joists to be more likely caused by a failed shower drain pipe. LV’s appointed contractor reported that the cause of damage was due to a failed silicone sealant. Their reasons for reaching this view are set out below: “The damage is to the bottom of the studs and rising up the walls. The remainder of the chipboard beneath the stud partitions was found to be swollen again this is in the area of the silicone. The waste pipe to the shower was found to be below the tray and floor, any leak from this would be running onto the solum resulting in a puddle. No sign of puddling waste visible to the solum. Further investigation found high moisture readings to the remainder of the ensuite out with the shower enclosure, this again is an indication that the EOW from the silicone has ingressed beneath the floor tiles. The 3 areas surround the ensuite shower area, the bedroom, the hall and the

-- 2 of 4 --

bathroom all have signs of water ingress from the ensuite. Finally we inspected the debris from the ensuite which was bagged and left to the outside of the property, we found visible water marks to the rear edge of the shower tray which would have been caused by the faulty silicone, mould was also evident to the remains of some of the plasterboard.” I’ve looked at the images provided by LV’s appointed contractor which support his view. They show water mark evidence to the outside edge of the shower tray which was fitted against the plasterboard wall. Although LV says it will not cover damage caused gradually, we look at whether such damage would have been visible or known to a customer before they made a claim. We don’t think it is reasonable for an insurer to rely on this exclusion alone if there were no signs of the damage for a customer to have taken action sooner. In this case, LV’s appointed contractor provided photos which include a photo of a fixed bathroom vanity unit in the adjoining bathroom. This shows evidence of visible mould on the wall inside the vanity unit. There are also signs of water marks to the laminate flooring in an adjoining floor to the ensuite. Mr D told us that he discovered water damage to the bedroom carpet adjoining the ensuite wall where the shower was around four to six weeks before he arranged for the ensuite shower to be replaced. So, taking everything into account, I think LV has reasonably shown that its decision to rely on the exclusion for damage caused gradually was reached in a fair way. I think it has reasonably applied its exclusion when deciding to decline Mr D’s claim for an escape of water. Mr D says LV’s appointed contractor made reference to their age and had already made his decision when he arrived at their property. Mr and Mrs D say the contractor said he assumed when arriving early for the appointment, that they would be up – and that he had looked at photos of the damage provided by Mr D before his visit. I am sorry that Mr and Mrs D were unhappy with the comments made by LV’s contractor. However, I have found the contractor has provided persuasive evidence to support LV’s decision. I understand Mr D wants LV to contribute toward some of the costs, including for Trace and Access. However, Mr D had arranged for a contractor to strip out the shower as he was having renovation works carried out when the leak was discovered. And as I’ve found that LV has reasonably declined the claim, it follows that I don’t think LV needs to make a contribution toward the costs to repair the damage. Mr D says that LV didn’t provide a response to their complaint. LV said it replied on 10 June 2025, which Mr D says he didn’t receive until 25 July 2025, when he contacted LV again. I think it is helpful for me to explain that one of the activities which we cannot investigate is how an insurer handled a complaint. The regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) sets out what complaints we can and cannot look at. However, I can see that even though LV’s response didn’t address their complaint, (it said it had resolved it) this didn’t prevent Mr D from bringing his complaint to this service promptly. I understand the costs to replace the damaged joists in Mr D’s home is significant. But in

-- 3 of 4 --

LV’s role as Mr D’s insurer for specified perils, I don’t find it has unreasonably declined his claim. So I’m not asking it to do any more. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Geraldine Newbold Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --