Veste

Not upheld: unfair claim decline complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5901653 of 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim decline complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-5901653
Decision date2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
FirmLiverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited
ProductHome insurance
Claim typeunfair claim decline
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo remedy ordered. LV is not required to pay any compensation, including for the initial three-week delay in appointing an assessor.

Summary

Mr B and Mrs B claimed for accidental damage to their septic tank and drainage field under their home insurance policy with LV. They believed the damage to the baffle occurred during a desludging in August 2024. LV declined the claim, concluding the damage resulted from gradual deterioration and wear and tear, which is excluded under the policy. The ombudsman found LV's expert report more detailed and persuasive, noting the tank was approximately 20 years old and HDPE tanks typically fail after 15-20 years due to baffle deterioration. The ombudsman upheld LV's decision as fair and reasonable, finding no evidence the damage was accidental.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found LV's expert report to be more thorough and detailed than Mr B and Mrs B's report. The expert clearly explained why damage during the desludge was unlikely, citing the duty of care on the emptying company and the absence of damage noted in their records. The report logically concluded that gradual deterioration of the baffle attachment structure was the most likely cause, consistent with the tank's age of approximately 20 years and the typical lifespan of 15-20 years for this type of tank. Since wear and tear is excluded under the policy terms, the decline was fair.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited, all decisions1,94427%
Home insurance, all decisions20,66838%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website