DRN-6292254

The complaint Mr B has complained about his let property insurer U K Insurance Limited because it has refused to cover some damage found to his property when the tenants were evicted. What happened When Mr B evicted his tenants and found the property damaged, he made a claim to UKI. Of a list of damage, including a wrecked kitchen, UKI said it would only offer settlement for three things. Those three things did not include the kitchen, and each, UKI said, would attract a policy excess: either £200 for accidental damage or £500 for malicious damage. Mr B was unhappy. He complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our Investigator thought UKI should cover the kitchen and a vertical crack in a bedroom wall as malicious damage. He wasn’t minded to ask it do anything more. UKI wasn’t prepared to agree the kitchen or the crack had been caused maliciously. It said if there was evidence of damage to the hinges of the kitchen cupboards it would accept malicious damage had occurred. Regarding the crack it said this was just not something which would be caused in that way. Evidence of damaged hinges was sent to UKI. UKI said the images supported its position of a lack of care being taken by the tenants as they showed how dirty the kitchen was. The complaint was referred to me for an Ombudsman’s decision. Having reviewed it, I didn’t think UKI had handled the claim fairly and reasonably. So I issued a provisional decision to share my views with both parties and set out what I thought UKI needed to do to put things right. My provisional findings were: “Excesses UKI said that any item of accidental damage would incur a £200 excess. I asked it about this because the policy documents show an excess of £100 for accidental damage claims. UKI said that was correct, it had made a mistake. UKI has sought to apply an excess to each instance of damage. However, the policy does not allow for this. The policy says the excess is the first amount of each and every claim, Mr B made one claim when he found all of the damage at his property. Arguably some damage is accidental and some malicious, meaning a claim for each has to be set up. Which means UKI can reasonably charge £100 against the one accidental damage claim, which will cover items accepted as damaged accidentally. And £500 against the one malicious damage claim, which will cover items accepted as damaged maliciously. I’ll take this into account in my redress set out below. Damage UKI declined reasonably in my view

-- 1 of 7 --

Kitchen lino flooring, damaged by pet urination – UKI thinks this has been stained over time. I agree. Lino should withstand occasional accidents which are cleaned up. I think it’s reasonable to say that the fact of the staining shows repeated damage over time. Vertical crack in bedroom wall – I’ve seen Mr B’s builder’s view that this happened by some kind of force, perhaps reverberation. But I note UKI’s point that there’s no sign of excessive damage nearby which might have caused this. I also think it’s just highly unlikely for a crack like this to have been caused maliciously. To me it looks more like a failed joint in plaster board. I am not a builder or surveyor but I trust Mr B will accept that I see a lot of complaints about this type of damage and if I thought UKI was unfairly declining something which should reasonably be covered – I’d be saying so. Damage UKI accepted and offered settlement for • Bathroom mirror/vanity unit – accepted as accidental damage, settlement £278.61 • Upstairs internal doors – accepted as malicious damage, settlement £1,474.09 • Stair spindle – accepted as malicious damage, £850.59 I haven’t seen any challenge from Mr B as to these settlement sums. I’m prepared to accept they are reasonable and will set them out as part of my award. UKI should have paid these sums to Mr B but did not. I haven’t seen it told him he could accept them and still complain. I’ll likely require UKI to pay them now, plus interest. Damage I’m minded to make UKI accept Kitchen units – there is damage across the kitchen with doors and drawers missing or hanging partly off their hinges/askew in their runners. Mr B has shown photos of the kitchen less than a year before the tenants were evicted. In the circumstances, and given the photos do show damaged hinges, I’m satisfied the tenants damaged the kitchen maliciously. I’m minded to require UKI to cover the damaged units under the malicious damage claim. Solid banister – I asked UKI about this, it looks like it has been kicked or punched, UKI said upon review it can accept it as malicious damage. I intend to make a direction for it to settle this as part of the malicious damage claim. Hole in ceiling – I said this seemed to be accidental damage – like the type of hole you’d see if someone came through the loft floor. UKI said it wouldn’t accept this as accidental damage because this wasn’t the cause of damage Mr B had initially suggested. I understand UKI’s concerns. But Mr B can’t know for sure how this damage to his property occurred. The fact he hypothesised one thing, and later another is not good reason for his claim to be declined. I intend to require UKI to make a settlement for this under the accidental damage claim. Damage for UKI to consider PVC external door – Mr B has sent some pictures which show some damage. This damage doesn’t seem to have been highlighted to UKI. I’ll ask it to review it. Toilet cistern – this has been shown to be cracked. I haven’t seen that this was drawn to UKI’s attention during the claim, it isn’t highlighted in the loss adjuster’s report. I think UKI should review it. Damaged floor by patio doors – Mr B has sent photos of the concrete floor by the patio door, seemingly in a gap where the lino ends before the door threshold. I haven’t seen that UKI has considered this. I’ll likely ask it to review it. If any of these items/areas of damage are accepted as malicious or accidental damage, UKI will have to make settlement for them without applying any excess. That is because the

-- 2 of 7 --

applicable excess for the two claims (accidental and malicious damage) will already have been accounted for in my award in this decision. Compensation I can see this has been a difficult time for Mr B. I know his intention was to move back into this property and he’s felt unable to do so. However, whilst I have found that UKI acted unfairly when offering settlement for these claims, I’m mindful that I’ve found that in respect to some of the damage it declined its view was reasonable. I think, even if UKI had settled this matter fairly as I’ve now suggested it should, there would still have been a lot of damage outside of its liability which Mr B would have needed to put right himself. So I don’t think his road back to living in this property would ever have been a smooth or quick one. I also must bear in mind that whilst the property is in a very poor state, and wouldn’t be very nice to live in, none of the damage I’ve seen, certainly that which I’ve found UKI liable for, would, in my view, have made it uninhabitable. So if Mr B felt unable to move back in, I’m not convinced that was due to any fault of UKI’s. That said, Mr B, I’m sure, would have felt much happier had he received the support from UKI I think it should have offered him. UKI could also have paid him the money it was satisfied he was due under the claim. It could have enabled him to start getting some work done. I also note UKI has acknowledged some poor customer service. I think UKI should pay Mr B £300 compensation for upset its failures have caused. I note it has paid £150 already, so that’s a further £150 for it to pay (unless Mr B has not cashed the cheque it sent for £150).” In response, UKI said it had not received a complaint about the policy excesses, and it didn’t agree with my stance that only one for each head of claim could reasonably be applied. Regarding the kitchen it said this had clearly deteriorated overtime, with there being overwhelming evidence that the property was subjected to a prolonged period of neglect and lack of care. UKI said if the kitchen units had been damaged maliciously there would be damage to the units around the hinges. It thought it wasn’t fair, in the circumstances for it to have to pay more compensation. UKI agreed to consider other areas of damage. Mr B said he had reported the PVC front door damage to UKI. He asked if; the crack in the cupboard, damaged carpets, lights damaged throughout the property and damage shown in other photos he sent including of the utility room, would be covered. Mr B asked if the kitchen repairs would include plastering, worktops and electrical work – all damaged by the tenants. He later said works regarding these will be needed when the kitchen units are removed. He confirmed he had not cashed UKI’s cheque for £150. 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. My provisional findings were set out in a number of titled sections. I’ll re-use those same titles in my final findings set out below. Excesses I appreciate Mr B did not complain about the excesses. But I couldn’t offer fair and reasonable findings on his complaint about UKI’s settlement for his claim without taking into account what I found during my review regarding the policy excesses. Our remit does allow for us to take into account additional factors like this.

-- 3 of 7 --

UKI’s policy wording was relevant here. There is no ‘standard’ wording across the industry. I’m satisfied I’ve applied its wording fairly to the circumstances here. In saying that I bear in mind that whilst the photos of the property show a significant lack of care was taken by the tenants, UKI has not shown that items were damaged maliciously at separate times or as a part of separate malicious acts. Nor has it shown why it would be fair, given the broad policy wording it has chosen, to say any item damaged accidentally should each be subject to a policy excess. Mr B took action to evict his tenants. Certainly during the eviction it is unlikely the tenants would have engaged with him over damage or allowed checks to be completed on the property. I’m satisfied that my view on UKI’s application of the policy excesses is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances here. Damage UKI declined reasonably in my view (And) Damage UKI accepted and offered settlement for In replying to my provisional decision neither party has commented on or objected to what I set out under these headings. So, there is no need for me to review or revise what I said. Damage I’m minded to make UKI accept Here I commented on kitchen units, the solid stair banister and a hole in the ceiling. Neither party commented on what I said regarding the latter two items. They both commented on the kitchen damage. UKI has objected to my view on the kitchen. I note its view about how the house has suffered over time. I can certainly understand and accept its view in that respect. But that does not mean that malicious (and/or accidental) damage can’t also have been caused (or have occurred). I bear in mind the background to the claim – with the tenants being subject to eviction and forced to leave the property. Also that Mr B has said the kitchen was fully reinstated only about a year before the eviction proceedings began. He’s been consistent about that, and I’m persuaded by his testimony. I note UKI’s view about what the photos of the kitchen hinges show. I bear in mind these were photos Mr B provided. Also, that neither UKI’s complaint handler nor I are experts in damage assessment. So I’ve re-reviewed UKI’s loss adjuster’s report to see what that expert’s view was. The loss adjuster notes cupboard doors are hanging off but then makes no assessment of that damage, he doesn’t include in his report any close-up photos of the unit carcasses. The photos he does include correlate with Mr B’s own wider shots of the kitchen. They show two missing drawer fronts, with various unit doors askew. On balance, I’m satisfied the damage could reasonably be viewed as having been done maliciously and I don’t think UKI has done enough to satisfy that this was most likely not the case and that, instead, these kitchen unit doors and drawer fronts were damaged overtime. I remain of the view that it can’t reasonably decline liability for this damage to the kitchen. Mr B asked if, as part of the costs for kitchen unit reinstatement, UKI would have to cover costs of other damage in the kitchen, namely to plaster, the worktops and electrics. I’ve reviewed the details Mr B shared with us when he made his complaint. The photos he sent of the kitchen itself seemed to only show clear damage to the units. I’ve reviewed UKI’s loss adjuster’s report and it does not seem the loss adjuster considered damage to the plaster, worktops or electrics in the kitchen itself. As UKI is agreeable to considering other damage, I’ll add these kitchen issues, subject to what I say below, to that list. I do see that one of the photos Mr B sent us originally shows damaged plaster on the wall between the patio doors and a kitchen shelf unit. I do note the loss adjuster considered some ‘moisture damage’ to kitchen walls. Which area was in discussion is not clear. But the section of wall in this photo does look wet to me. And I note Mr B told the loss adjuster he thought the walls, where they were wet, like the flooring, had been subjected to dog

-- 4 of 7 --

urination. I can see why UKI wasn’t inclined to offer cover for moisture affected walls and on that basis I’m not inclined to make it undertake any further consideration for this particular area of damaged wall plaster between the patio doors and kitchen shelving unit. However, from Mr B’s further comments it may be that these three items weren’t damaged by the tenants but that they will or might be when the kitchen units are removed. I have not made a finding in this decision that UKI must replace the kitchen, or even any/all of the units. My award is for payment of what it will cost to rectify the insured damage the tenant caused. What that will entail and what the cost will be is yet to be considered and UKI must have the chance to do that before this Service can step in. Damage for UKI to consider I note Mr B says he drew the PVC door to UKI’s attention. But it does not feature in its loss adjuster’s report. So I don’t think it’s fair to say it has, or should already have, considered it. What I do note from my review on this complaint – provisionally and now as I reach and set out my final decision – is that what is claimed for and what is being disputed seems to shift and change. I think this is a natural result of Mr B dealing with a complex claim in challenging personal circumstances. So I am not criticising him for this. But I think the parties will need to work much more clearly with each other once UKI resumes its claim assessment regarding outstanding claim items. So I’m going to add a direction to my below award to reflect this. In his response to my provisional decision, Mr B also highlighted other damage he thinks UKI should cover. I noted above that what items were being claimed for and complained about has seemed less than clear at times. Prior to issuing my provisional decision I asked Mr B if there was anything else (outside of items I had highlighted) which he felt UKI should be covering. When Mr B replied on that point, these items mentioned in reply to my provisional decision, including the areas shown in the photos, weren’t mentioned. And I can’t see that UKI has ever offered a specific answer to Mr B on these individual parts of his claim – rather it accepted a few limited items and declined the rest pretty much wholesale. The one comment UKI did make was that the carpets had been damaged over time by the dog urinating on them (so it wouldn’t cover them). I’ve seen no evidence though that Mr B claimed for urine-stained carpets. He claimed for the lino in the kitchen – which UKI’s loss adjuster found was stained by urination, and which it declined liability for. The loss adjuster’s report does not record that damaged carpets were similarly affected. So I don’t think UKI has fully and fairly considered the claim for damaged carpets at this stage. However, I can’t fairly and reasonably then, at this juncture, sweep all of the issues Mr B has raised following my provisional decision into this complaint with a view to either directing UKI to cover them or saying it can fairly decline them. First UKI needs to fully engage with the areas/items of damage claimed for and I note UKI is prepared to offer further consideration on this claim. So I’ll add these items to the list I set out provisionally. I’m not entirely sure what some of the photos show – but UKI can discuss this with Mr B as part of its ongoing claim consideration. Compensation I note UKI thinks it having to pay further compensation is not reasonable. But its wider comments about my provisional findings haven’t persuaded me that it handled matters fairly and reasonably. As such I remain of the view that it failed Mr B with its handing of this claim and that he suffered distress and inconvenience as a result. So I’m not persuaded it would be fair to change my view on the compensation I think is fairly and reasonably due. I note Mr B says he has not cashed the cheque UKI sent for £150. From what he says he has no intention to, and it seems the cheque will shortly expire. I think the best way forward

-- 5 of 7 --

here is for me to direct UKI to cancel the cheque for £150 and issue a new cheque for the total compensation sum of £300. If I am wrong regarding Mr B’s intent and, when UKI comes to cancel that cheque for £150, it finds it has been cashed, it can simply issue a new cheque for the outstanding compensation sum of £150. Putting things right I require UKI to pay Mr B: Accidental damage: • £278.61 – Mirror/vanity unit • The cost to fix the hole in the ceiling Both plus 8% simple per year interest, applied from the date the £278.61 was initially offered until settlement is made. Before settlement is made, an excess of £100 can be deducted from the total owed to Mr B. Malicious damage: • £1,474.09 – upstairs doors • £850.59 – stair spindle • The cost to resolve the kitchen unit damage covered by the policy • The cost to fix the solid banister All plus 8% simple per year interest, applied from the date the settlements for the doors and spindle were initially offered until settlement is made. Before settlement is made, an excess of £500 can be deducted from the total owed to Mr B. Compensation: • £300 – where my total award is £300 and a cheque for £150 has previosuly been sent but not cashed. UKI should cancel that initial cheque and issue one for £300. If it finds the cheque for £150 has been cashed, it can simply issue a cheque for the remaining £150. I also require UKI to consider liability under the policy for outstanding areas of damage highlighted by Mr B. It should discuss with Mr B what he thinks still needs consideration and make a list which can be shared with Mr B for his approval. UKI can then consider its liability for the items on the list. As a starting point the list should include, and liability consideration should be given to, the following: • (In the kitchen –) Plastering, worktops, electrics. • PVC external door • Toilet cistern • Solid floor by patio door • Crack in the bedroom cupboard (where two walls join) (this is distinct from the vertical crack in the bedroom wall which I have said UKI reasonably declined liability for) • Carpets • Ligh/light-fittings • Any damage evident in the four photos sent to this Service on 27 March 2026 My final decision I uphold this complaint. I require U K Insurance Limited to provide the redress set out above at “Putting things right”.

-- 6 of 7 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 13 May 2026. Fiona Robinson Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --