Upheld: poor claims handling, failure to investigate, unreasonable delays, failure to address policyholder concerns complaint against INTACT INSURANCE UK LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5943482 of 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00. poor claims handling, failure to investigate, unreasonable delays, failure to address policyholder concerns complaint against INTACT INSURANCE UK LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5943482 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | INTACT INSURANCE UK LIMITED |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | poor claims handling, failure to investigate, unreasonable delays, failure to address policyholder concerns |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | INTACT must: (1) Arrange a priority site visit no later than four weeks after acceptance of the decision; (2) Ensure an INTACT representative with decision-making authority and a subsidence specialist from loss adjusters attend; (3) Arrange further investigations to confirm extent of masonry store damage, whether it has stabilised, and establish cause of external stairs damage (with temporary repairs if subsidence-related); (4) Investigate whether earlier drainage works resolved the drainage problems; (5) Pay Mr and Mrs R a further £400 compensation (in addition to the £500 already paid) for distress and inconvenience caused by claim handling. |
Summary
Ms B and Mr and Mrs R complained about INTACT's handling of a subsidence claim on their jointly-owned property spanning two flats. The claim was submitted in March 2022 and accepted, with subsidence confirmed to a masonry store. However, four years later the claim remained incomplete, with Mrs R's repeated requests to include damage to external stairs (important for disabled Mr R's accessibility) largely ignored until November 2024, when INTACT claimed the damage was due to wear and tear without proper assessment. The ombudsman found INTACT failed to properly investigate the claim, provided no evidence for the wear and tear exclusion, and caused unnecessary delays and distress. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, ordered additional compensation of £400, and required a priority site visit with a decision-maker present to properly investigate the stairs damage, confirm stability of the store, and review the effectiveness of earlier drainage repairs.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while subsidence claims naturally take considerable time, four years without full investigation is excessive. INTACT accepted subsidence to the masonry store but failed to properly address the external stairs damage despite Mrs R constantly raising this issue from the start. The onus was on INTACT to prove the policy exclusion for gradually operating causes applied to the stairs, but they provided no evidence of proper assessment showing wear and tear as the cause. The ombudsman noted the damage to the stairs occurred near the accepted subsidence area and Mr R's disability made them particularly important. The claim required a priority site visit with a decision-maker present to establish the cause of the stairs damage, confirm stability of the store, and investigate whether earlier drainage works were effective. The £500 compensation already paid was insufficient given the two-year delay in addressing the stairs issue.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| INTACT INSURANCE UK LIMITED, all decisions | 201 | 38% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 20,668 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website