DRN-6267483

The complaint Mr K complains that Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd (“Accredited”) has unfairly handled an escape of water claim under his home insurance policy. Any reference to Mr K or Accredited includes respective agents or representatives. What happened The background of this complaint is well known between the parties, so I’ve provided a summary of events. • Mr K held his home insurance policy with Accredited. And in late January 2024 Mr K made a buildings and contents claim following an escape of water at his property. • Accredited accepted the claim. And following some back and forth, Mr K complained to Accredited about its handling of the claim. It issued a final response letter (“FRL1”) in August 2024. Sometime after Mr K raised another complaint and a second final response letter (“FRL2”) was issued in June 2025, in summary: o It detailed the costs it had paid for alternative accommodation (“AA”) and for an inconvenience allowance for time in hotels. It said it wouldn’t reimburse for costs above what it had already paid and said it handled this promptly. o It commented on its claims handling and communication, and largely defended its position, with the exception of recognising a delay in settling an AA payment which it said had been accounted for already within FRL1. And it said its agent’s choice of an online platform to communicate was reasonable and effective. o It said asbestos was identified within the lounge hallway and bathroom. And this was safely encapsulated by its specialist. Mr K had said asbestos had fallen on kitchen items and he was told to use a dishwasher to wash them. It said the kitchen ceiling did not contain asbestos, and no asbestos was found during its testing. So, its remedy to wash plaster from cutlery was reasonable. • The complaint came to this Service, and a decision was issued on the jurisdiction of the matter in December 2025. This said FRL1 was brought to us out of time meaning we couldn’t consider concerns raised about the contents settlement offer. But we could consider Accredited’s offer for AA and position on food costs, its handling of the asbestos matter and whether this meant kitchen contents were impacted. And whether the claim was handled well aside from issues Accredited had already paid £300 compensation for within FRL1. • Following this decision, our investigator looked into the merits of the complaint and initially upheld it in part, saying: o Accredited had fairly handled the AA under the policy and didn’t need to pay for further food costs in line with the policy. The policy was also clear it didn’t cover costs for loss or damage to food, so any contents of Mr K’s fridge and freezer weren’t covered by the policy.

-- 1 of 4 --

o There were no significant periods where Accredited failed to update or progress the claim so she wasn’t making any award in this area. o Accredited had provided evidence to support parts of the property were professionally cleaned. But she had little to support asbestos hadn’t entered the kitchen, so she asked Accredited to reconsider kitchen contents items as it was possible they had been contaminated based on the available evidence. • Accredited disagreed and provided various evidence. This included commentary from its asbestos specialist, and it said this supported there was no realistic risk of contamination to the kitchen. So, its previous decision to not replace contents items was reasonable. And it said Mr K had provided no technical or specialist evidence to support his position. It also provided documentation from its asbestos specialist including certificates. • Mr K said he reluctantly agreed to most parts of the view regarding the AA, food costs and handling. But on the point of exposure, he said there were other rooms all affected by the presence of asbestos (including his son’s bedroom and a lounge and kitchen area) so he would accept Accredited covering his claim for contents in these respective rooms. • The investigator said concerns about other rooms hadn’t been raised within this complaint. And the previous decision meant she didn’t have the jurisdiction to consider these matters in any case. She said Accredited’s commentary and evidence from its specialists persuaded her the exposure to the kitchen was highly unlikely. So, she wasn’t upholding the complaint or asking Accredited to do anything further. • Mr K disagreed, reiterating his points and he submitted photos and a video explaining his concerns. He argued that it was inevitable that debris from the asbestos impacted rooms would’ve made its way to the kitchen – therefore contaminating all of the kitchen units and contents. He said even if the chance of contamination was extremely small, he didn’t think it was reasonable to expect him to take this risk and wash potentially contaminated items for fear of exposure. This didn’t change the investigator’s mind, so the matter has been passed to me for an Ombudsman’s final decision. 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 K has asked to discuss his complaint with the deciding Ombudsman on the phone prior to a final decision being issued. This isn't normally something that our Ombudsmen do, with most cases being decided on the submissions alone. We provide an impartial and informal service, and we generally try not to give an impression of one party having any advantage over the other by our Ombudsmen speaking with only one of them. I would only look to discuss the complaint in this way if I felt it was necessary for my understanding, or if I otherwise would be missing key evidence. Mr K has been very clear in the points he’s raised within his various submissions to the Service. So, I’m satisfied such a discussion isn’t needed for me to reach a fair and reasonable determination in this case. Since Mr K has brought his complaint to this Service, some of the concerns originally brought appear to have fallen away following our investigator’s assessments. As a result, I’ll focus mainly on the topics still in dispute.

-- 2 of 4 --

Suffice to say, having reviewed the matters concerning AA, costs for food and handling, I’m in agreement with the conclusions previously reached by our investigator. The crux of Mr K’s remaining concern is about the potential asbestos exposure to his household. It’s not in dispute that Accredited’s agents carried out asbestos cleaning to the hallway, lounge and bathroom. But Mr K says the kitchen was also affected and his contents are contaminated by this exposure. In simple terms, Mr K has said the escape of water originated in his loft, caused his upstairs bathroom ceiling to collapse, and in turn the weight of the water and debris led to his kitchen ceiling (below the bathroom) to also collapse. And he’s said as a result the contaminated asbestos debris from above would’ve inevitably impacted the kitchen. And he said when standing in the kitchen, he could see through both the kitchen and bathroom ceilings and into his loft. So, he believed the asbestos exposure was most likely present throughout the kitchen even if the kitchen ceiling hadn’t contained asbestos. Mr K has also said the fact Accredited hired a specialist asbestos contractor to remove the debris from the kitchen and bathroom and told him not to touch or clean up himself showed there was this risk. So, I’ve looked at the available evidence. Accredited has provided evidence from its asbestos specialists that carried out the works. It’s provided me with various documentation. This includes quotes and invoices for works completed, as well as job sheets from February 2024 and April 2024. These say the contractor had decontaminated the bathroom, hallway and lounge. And the contractors confirmed within this document that the working area/areas had been cleaned thoroughly, was in line with HSE standards, and that in their professional opinion the area could be returned to normal use. On its face, a specialist in the area of asbestos has assessed the property and completed necessary works to remedy this. I’ve reviewed Mr K’s photos he’s provided, and these don’t show the clear line of sight from the kitchen to the loft as he’s described. I’ve also reviewed the commentary Accredited has provided in relation to the specific concerns about the kitchen. Its specialist said: “Due to the presence of laminate flooring and floorboards on the bathroom floor, it would be highly unlikely that any contamination from the asbestos would have travelled through these layers into the kitchen below. The asbestos fibres within textured coatings, such as the bathroom ceiling, are tightly bonded and do not readily release fibres—especially when the material is saturated with water, as in this case.” Accredited said this opinion supported that there was no realistic risk of contamination to the kitchen – so its previous advice to wash kitchen items within a dishwasher was reasonable. And therefore, there was no basis for the policy to cover items that Mr K had considered to be beyond economical repair. I’m not an expert in this area, and I’d take my lead from experts when dealing with a matter like this. So, I think Accredited’s decision is supported by the technical opinion in this case. Accredited has also provided further commentary that said: “With textured coatings typically containing between 1% - 4% asbestos content and the fibres being tightly bonded within the textured finish along with the plasterboard being saturated its unlikely that a spread of fibres occurred outside of the bathroom area.

-- 3 of 4 --

Even if sections of the bathroom ceiling were not saturated its highly unlikely that any fibres will have found their way through the bathroom laminate and floorboards into other areas of the property due to its bonded nature and the fibres being sporadically set throughout the textured coating.” I think this further supports Accredited’s position. Mr K has indicated that this use of percentage (1% – 4%) from the expert shows a respective risk of exposure of this amount. I disagree this is the suggestion from the expert, and instead I’m satisfied the percentage quoted is about the asbestos content of the item – not the equivalent risk of exposure. Overall, while I understand Mr K’s concerns, Accredited has provided comments and evidence from a suitably qualified specialist in this area showing they are satisfied the property has been made safe. So, I’m satisfied Accredited’s refusal to do more, and its suggestion to Mr K that plaster or debris within the kitchen could simply be washed, was reasonable in the circumstances and I’m not going to direct it to do anything further. If Mr K subsequently provides any technical opinion from a suitably qualified person on this subject that supports his viewpoint, I would expect Accredited to look again. My final decision For all of the above reasons, I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 11 May 2026. Jack Baldry Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --