Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6119556 of 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00. Home insurance claim disputes complaint against ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6119556 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Home insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No award made |
Summary
Mr F claimed under his home emergency insurance policy for a broken drain cover in his driveway that created a hole. ARAG declined the claim, stating it did not constitute a home emergency. Mr F argued the policy covered drainage damage and that the hole posed a trip hazard and potential health risk from sewage spillage. The ombudsman found that although the damage was sudden and covered under the policy's drainage provisions, it did not meet the policy's definition of a home emergency, as it did not require immediate action to prevent damage, render the home safe, or alleviate health risks. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Although the broken drain cover could be described as sudden and unexpected damage to the drainage system covered by the policy, it did not meet the policy's definition of a home emergency. The ombudsman found that the broken cover did not require immediate action to prevent damage to the home, did not affect main services, and did not reasonably create an unsafe condition or health risk. The absence of a drain cover on a driveway did not make the home unsafe or unsecure, and there was insufficient evidence that it caused a health risk.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited, all decisions | 102 | 26% |
| Home insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 25,670 | 38% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 47,449 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website