DRN-6014120

The complaint Mrs E is unhappy with how U K Insurance Limited (UKI) handled a claim made under her buildings insurance policy. Any references to UKI include its agents. What happened In March 2024, Mrs E contacted UKI to report a leak through her kitchen floor. UKI investigated this and focused on a leak from the party wall which adjoined Mrs E’s home with a neighbouring property. Mrs E complained about UKI’s handling of her claim several times. Across the complaints she said the communication wasn’t good enough, the claim wasn’t progressing fast enough and there had been confusion over several areas, such as when the repair works were going to start and what was happening with arranging alternative accommodation. UKI issued three final response letters. The first was in July 2024 and wasn’t referred to this Service within six months. Both sides accept we’re unable to consider the complaint responded to at that time. The second and third final response letters were issued in April and June 2025. These said there had been opportunities to progress the claim more quickly which had been overlooked and confusion around alternative accommodation. UKI paid Mrs E £500 compensation. Mrs E referred her complaint to this Service for consideration. Our investigator issued her conclusions and initially said UKI needed to make a further payment to recognise the disturbance Mrs E experienced after returning home. UKI said if it was to do so would leave very little money left in the alternative accommodation allowance before reaching the limit set out in the policy wording. This would essentially mean Mrs E would need to fund her own alternative accommodation costs when the remedial works were carried out and Mrs E needed to move out of her home again. With this comment in mind, our investigator said UKI didn’t need to pay any more in respect of the disturbance Mrs E was experiencing. Mrs E didn’t agree – she said the remaining money available to her from the alternative accommodation allowance would be unlikely to find her somewhere suitable when the works were carried out. And that UKI hadn’t truly understood how impactful this matter had been on her. As this matter remained unresolved, this matter 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. I won’t address every argument or piece of evidence in detail. Instead, I’ve focused on the key points relevant to reaching what I consider to a fair and reasonable decision. This isn’t meant as a discourtesy - both sides should be assured that I’ve carefully considered everything they’ve provided, even if I haven’t commented on each point directly.

-- 1 of 3 --

It’s not in dispute this matter has been very difficult for Mrs E. I don’t underestimate the impact this matter has had. Making an insurance claim following an escape of water from your own home can often be stressful and difficult, however the situation Mrs E faces is complicated further by the fact her property had been damaged by a leak from her neighbours’ property. This means it’s not within UKI’s gift to carry out repairs to stop the leak and repair the damage to her home. Alternative accommodation The crux of this complaint is UKI’s decision to limit the remainder of the alternative accommodation allowance. This is ahead of the remedial works being carried out when the repairs to the third-party property are complete, along with other issues relating to the damp proof cause, which were identified after the last final response letter I’m able to consider. So, as a starting point, I’ve considered the policy wording, which says: “Summary of policy limits: Buildings (if selected) Alternative accommodation and rent £25,000” I’m satisfied this is clear that the most UKI needs to pay in respect of alternative accommodation for each claim is £25,000. I appreciate there isn’t much of this left, because Mrs E needed to be in alternative accommodation while the drying took place, and then there was evidence of further damage found when she was due to return, which delayed the planned return and led to further costs. I’m also satisfied UKI is entitled to limit any costs incurred in respect of this part of the claim in line with the policy terms. This is the policy limit it agreed to cover in return for the premium Mrs E paid, so I can’t say it’s unfair of UKI to adhere to the limit it set out in the policy wording. I appreciate the situation at Mrs E’s home is far from ideal, but I’m satisfied UKI took appropriate steps make Mrs E’s home as comfortable as possible in the circumstances. It struck this balance whilst bearing in mind Mrs E will likely need the remaining balance to vacate the property when the repairs are able to be carried out. UKI has clearly and consistently told Mrs E how much of the allowance is left, and this was appropriate for it to do so. I don’t consider UKI’s decision to hold back part of the alternative allowance funds unreasonable in the circumstances, because I find its argument that the funds need to be retained to fund alternative accommodation when the repairs are carried out persuasive. As I haven’t found UKI has done anything wrong, I’m unable to say it needs to do more to put things right in respect of this part of Mrs E’s complaint. The impact on Mrs E It’s clear that this matter has been very impactful on Mrs E, and she feels many of the issues relating to this claim were beyond her control. I can understand why Mrs E feels this way. There were several months where she needed to be in contact with UKI to arrange alternative accommodation – but this is consequence of the claim. The fact Mrs E’s home was deemed to be dry then found to be damaged again is not something within UKI’s control because the leak originated from the third-party property – so UKI isn’t responsible for repairing the cause of the leak. This claim is taking a long time to resolve but, for the most part, UKI have been proactive in moving this forward. It hasn’t been able to share all correspondence with Mrs E as she’s

-- 2 of 3 --

asked because some of it relates to her neighbour and it can’t share another’s person’s data with her. So, I don’t consider UKI’s position in this respect unreasonable. I agree there have been occasional service failings where calls haven’t been returned as promised. But in the round, the main issue impacting Mrs E is the fact repairs can’t be carried out until the leak is repaired. This isn’t something UKI are directly in control of, and, in the round, I’m satisfied UKI has for the most part proactively contacted the third-party or managing agent where appropriate. That’s not to say there haven’t been service failings, but I consider UKI’s payment of £500 to fairly reflect the distress and inconvenience Mrs E has experienced as a direct result of those service failings. I’m not going to require UKI to increase the compensation it’s already paid to Mrs E. 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 Mrs E to accept or reject my decision before 12 May 2026. Emma Hawkins Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --