U K Insurance Limited · DRN-6170909

The complaint Mr F complained that U K Insurance Limited (“UKI”) unfairly recorded a claim against his home buildings insurance policy. What happened Mr F noticed a leak from a bath tap in July 2025. He said he arranged for a plumber to repair the problem. He then contacted UKI to see if there was cover under his policy for the call-out charge. He said he tried to access his policy terms via UKI’s website, but it wasn’t working. He said no hardcopy of the terms had been provided when the policy was taken out. Mr F said UKI’s agent told him on the phone that she could check his coverage if he agreed to open a claim. Mr F said he agreed. But he thought this was an administrative step to obtain information, not a formal claim. The agent then confirmed there was no cover for the tap repair. Mr F said he later discovered that a record of the claim had been made. He said he asked UKI to remove it but it refused. So he complained. In its final complaint response UKI said its agent had explained that a claim would have to be logged in order to confirm cover. It said Mr F agreed to this. The business said its policy terms require Mr F to inform it of any incidents like this where he needs to claim or may need to claim. UKI maintained that the record it had made on the Claims and Underwriting Exchange (“CUE”) database was correct. UKI paid Mr F £25 for an issue when locating his policy information. But he hasn’t included this point in his referral to our service. So, I won’t consider it further here. Mr F didn’t think UKI had treated him fairly and referred the matter to our service. Our investigator didn’t uphold his complaint. He thought UKI’s agent had been clear that a claim would have to be set up for cover to be considered. He said that Mr F consented to this. Our investigator noted Mr F had told UKI that he’d read his policy terms. But didn’t think it was clear whether his loss was covered. This was at odds with what Mr F said about not having sight of this information. Mr F didn’t accept our investigator’s findings and asked for an ombudsman to consider his complaint. It 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’m not upholding Mr F’s complaint. Let me explain. We expect UKI to communicate clearly with its policyholders and to ensure any records it keeps are accurate. I’ve focused on this here.

-- 1 of 3 --

I’ve listened to the call when Mr F contacted UKI on 7 July 2025. He explained the problem with his leaking tap and asked if this situation was claimable under his policy. UKI’s agent said that to confirm cover she would have to log a claim. She asked Mr F if he was happy to do this. Mr F said yes. He explained that he didn’t want to make a fraudulent claim. The agent then repeated that she would need to set up a claim to consider whether cover was in place. Mr F replied that he’d read the policy but didn’t think it was “clear cut”. He then agreed for UKI’s agent to continue with the claim. Having listened to the call it’s clear that Mr F was told more than once that a claim would have to be set up in order to consider whether there was cover for his loss. It’s also clear that he consented to this happening. So, I’m satisfied that Mr F was aware of this. Mr F’s policy terms state: “When you find out about anything you need to claim for, or may need to claim for, you must tell us as soon as possible.” Mr F told UKI he wanted to know if he could claim for the repairs his plumber had carried out. This was something he was required to tell UKI about under his policy terms and conditions. UKI is signed up to CUE as most insurers are. Its database is used by the industry to prevent misrepresentation and fraud. UKI is required by CUE to make an accurate record of any claim or incident reported to it. This is required whether a claim is successful or not. In this case Mr F consented for a claim to be set up. He wanted to see if he could claim back the cost of the plumber he employed. I understand his argument that he only wanted to know if this was covered. But this meant setting up a claim before UKI could then progress to considering if cover was in place. As discussed, Mr F was made aware of this and gave his consent. I’ve seen the information UKI recorded about the claim. It correctly described the issue as a leak relating to a bath tap. It confirmed that no payment had been made in relation to this claim. This is what I’d expect to see. It’s correct that a claim was logged. And as there was no cost incurred by UKI, the record on the CUE database confirms this. I acknowledge Mr F’s argument that he didn’t have sight of his policy terms when he called UKI. This is because it’s website wasn’t working and he hadn’t been sent a hard copy. I don’t dispute what he says. But he didn’t ask to be provided with a copy of the policy terms or a link to where they could be found. He was asked if he wanted a claim to be logged and he consented to this. During the call Mr F explained that he had read the policy terms but didn’t think the point about cover was “clear cut”. The indication from this is that Mr F had read his policy terms, which differs to what he said in his complaint. Based on this information UKI didn’t treat Mr F unfairly when it made the record it did. In his submissions to our service Mr F said that he has been charged more for insurance as a result of this claim record. I can’t see that he raised this issue with UKI as part of this complaint. Under the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) dispute resolution or DISP rules, which I must apply, a complaint must first be referred to UKI. If Mr F isn’t satisfied with its response, or this takes longer than eight weeks, our service can be asked to consider the matter. As this hasn’t happened yet I can’t consider this point here.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask X to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --