Partially upheld: unfair charges; claim handling; policy excess application complaint against INTACT INSURANCE UK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs K complained to the FOS about their home insurer Intact's handling of a subsidence claim, specifically challenging two decisions: the refusal to provide underpinning and the charging of two subsidence excesses. Intact argued the property did not need underpinning as it had stabilised after vegetation removal and drain repairs, and that two excesses were justified because two separate causes (trees and leaking drains) had caused the subsidence. The ombudsman upheld the decision not to require underpinning but upheld the complaint regarding the double excess, finding that the arborist's report and borehole samples supported only one cause of subsidence. The ombudsman required Intact to amend its records to reflect one subsidence claim and apply only one excess of £1,000 to the settlement.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while an engineering solution (underpinning) was not required because the causes of subsidence (vegetation and leaking drains) had been removed and the property had stabilised, Intact's decision to charge two subsidence excesses was unfair. The arborist's findings, supported by borehole samples showing dry soil at depth, indicated a single cause of subsidence (vegetation-induced clay shrinkage) rather than two separate causes. The complaint handler's explanation regarding the borehole samples was inconsistent with the actual sample descriptions. Although accurate record-keeping is important, fairness requires recording this as one subsidence claim with one excess.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website