Not upheld: claim handling delays and miscommunication; dispute over non-fault claim registration; excess payment dispute complaint against Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A and Mrs A claimed for storm damage to their roof under their home insurance policy with Accredited. They complained about delays in claim processing (17 days for surveyor visit), miscommunication about cash settlement discussions, a sparse surveyor's report, and the requirement to pay a £400 excess when they believed the damage was caused by debris from their neighbour's roof. They wanted the claim registered as non-fault and the excess refunded. The ombudsman found Accredited handled the claim fairly, with delays justified by high claim volumes, the settlement process reasonable, and the excess correctly applied under policy terms. The ombudsman upheld Accredited's £150 compensation offer as appropriate and did not require further action.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the regulatory requirement that insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly. While acknowledging delays caused by high claim volumes, the ombudsman found Accredited progressed the claim as best it could in the circumstances. The surveyor's report, though brief, contained the key information needed to accept the claim. Accredited fairly settled the claim based on Mr A and Mrs A's own quotes after appropriate checks. The ombudsman found the excess was correctly applied as the policy required payment regardless of whether the claim was registered as storm or accidental damage, and that third-party recovery is a matter for the insurer to pursue separately. The 45-day settlement period was reasonable for this type of claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website