Not upheld: claim declined - storm damage and accidental damage complaint against UK Insurance Limited (trading as Direct Line)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6076351 of 2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00. claim declined - storm damage and accidental damage complaint against UK Insurance Limited (trading as Direct Line). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6076351 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | UK Insurance Limited (trading as Direct Line) |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | claim declined - storm damage and accidental damage |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No award made. The ombudsman advised that if Mr B wishes to pursue an accidental damage claim for the internal damage, he should contact UKI to discuss this. |
Summary
Mr B claimed that exceptionally heavy rainfall on 30 October 2025 caused rainwater to enter his home through the roof, damaging his bedroom ceiling. He initially claimed under the storm cover, but UKI declined based on weather records not meeting storm thresholds. UKI's contractor attributed the damage to wear and tear and cited a policy exclusion for faulty workmanship or design, noting that the underfelt had been incorrectly installed. The ombudsman upheld UKI's decision, finding that weather records did not support storm conditions and that the policy exclusion for faulty design applied to the roof installation defect that allowed water ingress.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the three-part test for storm claims: whether storm conditions existed, whether damage was consistent with storm damage, and whether the storm was the main cause. Based on weather records, the ombudsman concluded storm conditions did not exist at the time of the damage, making it reasonable for UKI to decline the storm claim. Regarding the accidental damage claim, the ombudsman found that the policy exclusion for faulty workmanship or design applied to the roof installation defect, which allowed water ingress. The ombudsman rejected Mr B's argument that the sudden water ingress should be treated as accidental damage, finding that the underlying cause was the faulty installation of the underfelt.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| UK Insurance Limited (trading as Direct Line), all decisions | 13 | 15% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 20,668 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website