Not upheld: claim handling and decision on subsidence repairs complaint against Intact Insurance Uk Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs H complained about Intact's handling of a 2024 subsidence claim on their property, which had previously been subject to subsidence claims in 2010 and 2014. They believed the reappearance of cracking in the same areas indicated the original repairs were inadequate and argued that underpinning was necessary for a permanent fix. Intact treated the 2024 claim as a new incident and, based on specialist investigations including nine-month monitoring, concluded there was no ongoing subsidence and offered only minor repairs. The ombudsman found that the specialist expert evidence was consistent and supported Intact's conclusion that movement was historic rather than active, making the proposed repairs proportionate and the decision not to carry out underpinning fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the range of specialist expert evidence was consistent across different forms of investigation and supported Intact's conclusion that there was no ongoing subsidence or continuing ground movement. The ombudsman was satisfied that Intact acted fairly and reasonably in relying on this evidence when reaching their claim decision. The reappearance of cracking in the same areas was not, on its own, sufficient to demonstrate ongoing subsidence or that earlier repairs were improperly completed, particularly given the 2016 certificate of structural adequacy and current investigations showing no significant ongoing movement.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website