DRN-6279878

The complaint Mr and Mrs E complained about the guarantee U K Insurance Limited (“UKI”) confirmed it would provide relating to a path repair, under their home buildings insurance policy. I’ll refer to Mrs E for ease. What happened In June 2024 Mrs E said a foul smell was emanating from the drains at her home. She contacted UKI. It arranged an inspection and found several collapsed pipes. Mrs E said this created unsafe living conditions and the repairs took some time to complete. Once the repairs were completed in October 2024, she said it was agreed that her pathway would be repaired. This was damaged by the collapsed drains. Mrs E said the drain work was guaranteed for ten years. But UKI’s contractor would only agree to a two-year guarantee for the proposed path repairs. Mrs E said it was important for safety reasons that a ten-year guarantee was provided. She also said it was unfair that she was pressured into accepting a cash settlement. Because of this she complained to UKI. In its final complaint response dated 6 May 2025 UKI told Mrs E that she was entitled to a 12-month guarantee under her policy terms. In this instance it said its supplier had offered a 2-year guarantee, which exceeds what it was required to provide. UKI didn’t think it had acted unfairly. Mrs E disagreed with UKI’s response and referred the matter to our service. Our investigator didn’t uphold her complaint. She agreed with UKI that the guarantee it offered exceeded what was required under Mrs E’s policy terms. She said that as Mrs E would not accept the repairs without a longer guarantee, a cash settlement was a reasonable way forward. This would allow her to appoint a contractor that could potentially provide a longer guarantee. Our investigator said she thought the compensation UKI had offered was fair in the circumstances. Mrs E didn’t accept our investigator’s findings and asked for an ombudsman to consider her complaint. It has been passed to me to decide. I issued a provisional decision in March 2026 explaining that I was intending to not uphold Mrs E’s complaint. Here’s what I said: provisional findings 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 my intention is to not uphold Mrs E’s complaint. I’m sorry to disappoint her

-- 1 of 5 --

but I’ll explain why I think my decision is fair. Mrs E has explained that because of her disability she is very concerned that the pathway used to access her home will be unsafe. To alleviate her concerns, she expects the repairs to be provided with a ten-year guarantee that will align with the drain repairs. I’ve considered whether UKI treated her fairly here. Mrs E’s policy terms, under the heading “Our guarantee” say: “We guarantee any work carried out by our suppliers for 12 months. We don’t provide any guarantee for work carried out by a supplier chosen and instructed by you.” I think this term is clearly worded. In her response to our investigator’s view Mrs E said, “there is no rational or fair basis for UKI to limit the pathway repairs to a 12-month (or even two-year) guarantee”. She said that the inconsistency with the guarantee for the drain repair, “demonstrates a failure to ensure parity and long-term structural safety”. I’ve thought about what Mrs E has said. Including her view that the pathway damage was a direct consequence of the cracked drains. But it’s her policy terms and conditions that determine how UKI will deal with her claim. These terms are clear that its suppliers will provide a 12-month guarantee. By offering a two-year guarantee, UKI’s supplier is going over and above what it is required to provide. I acknowledge the concerns Mrs E has made about the safety of the path. But I’ve seen nothing to indicate UKI must provide a guarantee in excess of that required by its policy terms. Mrs E raised concerns about being offered a cash settlement. This was first raised with UKI’s contractor on 2 May 2025. The business sent its final complaint response a few days later. It doesn’t comment on this point. It appears this wasn’t relayed to UKI. But it should have been. As this was raised prior to UKI’s complaint response its fair that I consider it here. I can see that UKI referred to its supplier regarding the length of the guarantee. As discussed the supplier was able to provide a two-year guarantee not ten-years. At this juncture the notes confirm a cash settlement was offered. This was to allow Mrs E the opportunity to seek a guarantee that suited her better, with a local contractor. Mrs E’s policy terms say: “How we settle claims …we will either: - repair or rebuild the damaged part using our suppliers; - pay to repair or rebuild the damaged part using your suppliers; - make a cash payment If we can repair or rebuild the damaged part, but we agree to use your suppliers or make a cash payment, we will only pay you what it would have cost us using our suppliers and therefore the amount you receive may be lower than the cost charged by your suppliers.” UKI chose to offer a cash settlement as it was unable to provide the guarantee Mrs E wanted. It wasn’t required to provide a ten-year guarantee under the terms of her policy. So, I think it was reasonable to offer a settlement when it did. This allowed Mrs E the opportunity

-- 2 of 5 --

to find a contractor that potentially could offer a longer guarantee. I’m sorry to hear about the bereavement Mrs E suffered around the time she was offered this settlement. But I think UKI’s offer was a reasonable way forward to ensure the repairs were able to progress. Mrs E complained to UKI earlier in 2024 about several other issues. The business provided a final complaint response. I can see that our investigator commented on these issues in her findings. However, we’re not free to consider every complaint a customer brings to us. We operate under a set of rules published by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) known as the dispute resolution, or DISP, rules. These set out the extent of our powers, including the time limits that apply to complaints. DISP 2.8.2 R says that, unless the business consents or there are exceptional reasons to explain the delay, we’re unable to consider a complaint made more than six months after the date on which a business sent a complainant its final response. UKI provided its response to Mrs E’s complaint on 4 October 2024. The letter gave her referral rights to our service and explained that she had six months in which to refer her complaint. The letter also clearly explained that UKI would not give its permission for us to consider Mrs E’s complaint if it was brought late unless there were exceptional circumstances. In its letter I can see UKI provided a link to our website and our contact telephone number. This meant that Mrs E had until 4 April 2025 to bring her complaint to us. However, she didn’t contact us until 4 July. This means that Mrs E brought this complaint to us outside the six-month time limit, which I must apply. We contacted UKI to ask if it gave its authorisation to consider these complaint issues, but it declined. I can consider whether there were any exceptional circumstances that prevented Mrs E bringing her complaint to us sooner. She said she experienced a period of ill-health between October 2024 and July 2025. And she referred to the bereavement she suffered in April that she explained was extremely traumatic for her. I’m sorry to hear that Mrs E was ill, and for the bereavement she suffered. I understand that this must have been a very difficult time for her. The bar is set quite high for what we consider to be ‘exceptional’ circumstances. As an example, this could mean someone who is incapacitated in hospital and can’t physically refer their complaint to us. I acknowledge Mrs E was ill but I think it’s still reasonable to expect that she could have contacted our service online or via a phone call within six months of receiving UKI’s complaint response. The bereavement Mrs E experienced was at the very end or just after the six-month response period. So, although it’s not my intention to diminish the distress this caused Mrs E. I think she could have contacted our service within the timeframe specified. Six months is a long time in which to make contact, so we think it’s fair that the bar is set at a high level for this condition to be met. Having considered this, I’m not persuaded that there were exceptional circumstances that prevented Mrs E from contacting our service within six months of UKI’s complaint letter. This means I’m not persuaded that Mrs E has shown we can consider her earlier complaint issues under the DISP rules. Similarly, Mrs E raised concerns after UKI’s complaint response on 6 May 2025. This is being dealt with as a separate complaint. I won’t include these issues here. In summary I don’t think UKI treated Mrs E unfairly when it declined to provide a ten-year guarantee for the path repairs, and in offering the settlement it did. I can’t consider the earlier

-- 3 of 5 --

issues Mrs E raised under the DISP rules. So, I can’t fairly ask UKI to do anymore. I asked both parties to send me any further comments and information they might want me to consider before I reached a final decision. UKI didn’t respond with any further comments or information for me to consider. Mrs E responded at length to say she did not accept my provisional decision. In summary she said my decision didn’t apply the duties owed under the Equality Act 2010. Under the act she said she is entitled to reasonable adjustments and fair treatment to reflect her vulnerability and the increased risk. She said the guarantee provided for the path doesn’t mitigate this risk. Mrs E reiterated her view that the path guarantee should mirror the ten-year guarantee provided for the drains. Because this wasn’t agreed she said she was exposed to health problems. Mrs E also said she had concerns with how UKI handled her Subject Access Request (“SAR”). In her response Mrs E said the threshold for exceptional circumstances should have been met here. She said the difficulties she described should be considered holistically rather than individually. 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’m sorry that Mrs E remains dissatisfied with my provisional decision. But I don’t consider a change to my findings is warranted. I have considered the Equality Act 2010 (“the act”) and how it applies to Mrs E’s circumstances. But I’m not persuaded that UKI treated her unfairly in how it handled her claim. I acknowledge Mrs E’s comments. But it’s clear that UKI agreed to provide a guarantee that was in excess of that required by its policy terms. Mrs E hasn’t shown that a longer guarantee should have been provided. I can’t see that the act requires this here either. I’m sorry for the difficulties Mrs E said she experienced. But for the reasons I’ve already explained in my provisional decision, the bar is set quite high for what we consider to be exceptional circumstances. Six months is a long time to get in touch with our service. There is no doubt that Mrs E experienced a difficult and upsetting time with her health conditions and bereavements. But I’m not persuaded that there were exceptional circumstances that prevented her making contact in the timeframe specified. Mrs E refers to a more recent response from UKI in relation to a SAR she made. This didn’t form part of the complaint I’m considering here, so I’m not able to comment further on this point. In summary I’m not able to consider the earlier issues Mrs E raised under the DISP rules, and I don’t think UKI treated her unfairly in when it declined to provide a ten-year guarantee for the path repairs. So, I can’t reasonably ask UKI to do anymore. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint.

-- 4 of 5 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E and Mrs E to accept or reject my decision before 13 May 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --