Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr Y claimed on his home emergency insurance policy in June 2025 after noticing water marks on his kitchen ceiling. Aviva's contractors diagnosed worn sealant around the bath and resealed it, after which Mr Y reported the leak appeared resolved. When Mr Y reported continued leakage in October 2025, a third contractor eventually identified a different source requiring invasive ceiling access. Mr Y complained that the initial contractors had failed to properly diagnose the leak, causing extensive damage. The ombudsman found that the initial diagnosis was reasonable, the three-month gap before further leakage was reported suggested the repair was effective, and invasive investigation was appropriately treated as a last resort. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the first contractor's diagnosis of worn sealant was reasonable and that the three-month gap before Mr Y reported continued leakage suggested the initial repair had been effective. The ombudsman noted that invasive investigation (cutting into the ceiling) is generally a last resort, not a first step, and that it would have been unreasonable to expect the contractor to take such action without evidence of continued leakage. The ombudsman concluded that Aviva had no reason to believe the previous repair had failed until Mr Y contacted it again in October, and therefore Aviva could not be held responsible for damage that occurred during the concealed leak period.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website