Not upheld: claim handling - subsidence claim management and decision on scope of remedial works complaint against UK Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs W complained that UK Insurance Limited handled their subsidence claim unfairly, seeking permission to appoint their own agents and requesting full underpinning of their property. UKI had accepted the claim in December 2023 and undertaken mitigation works including drain repairs and tree removal, then proposed in July 2025 to underpin only the rear extension/annex while monitoring the main property. The ombudsman found UKI's proposal was fair because monitoring showed reduced movement following mitigation works and UKI could not be expected to fund extensive underpinning without evidence of necessity. While acknowledging delays and poor communication, the ombudsman upheld UKI's £600 compensation offer and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that UKI's decision to decline full underpinning of the main property was fair because mitigation works had been completed, monitoring showed reduced movement, and UKI's proposal included further monitoring to reassess if underpinning became necessary. The ombudsman determined that UKI could not fairly be expected to pay for extensive underpinning when it could not be shown to be necessary. While acknowledging handling issues, the ombudsman considered £600 compensation appropriate given the complexity of subsidence claims.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website