Not upheld: unfair claim handling and withdrawal of goodwill offer complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs C claimed for subsidence damage to garages at their property caused by a shrub. LV handled the claim with delays and poor communication but offered storage solutions and driveway extension work to accommodate their vulnerabilities. Following an ombudsman decision upholding aspects of their complaint, LV withdrew its offer to extend the driveway, stating it was not affected by subsidence. Mr and Mrs C complained that this withdrawal was unfair given their vulnerability status. The ombudsman found that while the initial offer was reasonable, LV was not obligated to carry out works unrelated to subsidence, and that parking on the existing driveway remained a viable option, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while LV's initial offer to extend the driveway was a reasonable goodwill gesture taking into account Mr and Mrs C's vulnerabilities, LV was not obligated to carry out works unrelated to subsidence damage. The ombudsman noted that further information had come to light showing the driveway was not affected by subsidence and that parking on the existing driveway remained viable. The ombudsman reasoned that subsidence claims inevitably involve inconvenience which is not the insurer's responsibility to mitigate, and that an ombudsman's previous decision is not precedent for future decisions. The ombudsman was not satisfied that sufficient information explained why parking on the driveway would cause considerably more difficulty for the vulnerable consumers than parking in the garage.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website