Not upheld: claim record retention and refusal to remove subsidence claim complaint against UK Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S and Miss V complained to the FOS about UKI's refusal to remove a subsidence claim from their records following damage to their garage in 2017. UKI had accepted the claim based on expert reports from a surveyor and arboriculturist concluding subsidence was the cause. After monitoring showed the property stabilised, Mr S disputed subsidence was the cause and requested the claim be removed, citing financial impact on insurance premiums and property sale prospects. UKI refused, maintaining their position based on expert evidence and offering further site inspection. The ombudsman upheld UKI's decision, finding they acted fairly by relying on qualified expert opinions and that property stabilisation alone does not prove subsidence did not occur. The ombudsman noted Mr S's own structural engineer report was not provided to UKI before their complaint response, so could not be considered in assessing UKI's fairness.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that UKI acted fairly by relying on expert reports from qualified specialists (surveyor and arboriculturist) that concluded subsidence was the cause of damage. Property stabilisation alone does not definitively prove subsidence did not occur, particularly in cases involving clay soil shrinkage. UKI offered reasonable alternative avenues for investigation (further site inspection) which Mr S refused. Critically, Mr S's own structural engineer report was not provided to UKI before their complaint response, so UKI could only be assessed on evidence available to them at the time. UKI has an obligation to record claims accurately, and the ombudsman found no error in their decision to maintain the subsidence claim record.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website