Upheld: inadequate repair quality; failure to provide effective and lasting repair; failure to properly indemnify policyholder complaint against Fairmead Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6174836 of 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00. inadequate repair quality; failure to provide effective and lasting repair; failure to properly indemnify policyholder complaint against Fairmead Insurance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6174836 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Fairmead Insurance Limited |
| Product | home insurance |
| Claim type | inadequate repair quality; failure to provide effective and lasting repair; failure to properly indemnify policyholder |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Fairmead must either: (1) arrange for an independent flood gate specialist to assess the installed gates and design and install appropriate flood gates without spaces (which could include adapting current gates if the specialist considers appropriate); or (2) allow Mr B to source his own flood gate specialist, obtain a quote for installation of effective flood gates, and pay that quote. Additionally, Fairmead must pay £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the inadequate repair and increased anxiety from lacking appropriate flood defences. |
Summary
Mr B claimed on his home insurance after a vehicle damaged his specialist flood gates and wall. Fairmead accepted the claim and its assessor recommended specialist flood gates be installed on a like-for-like basis. However, the contractor's replacement gates have approximately 2-inch gaps that prevent them from functioning as flood defences. Fairmead rejected Mr B's complaint, arguing insufficient evidence the original gates were specialist flood gates. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that the original gates functioned as effective flood defences and the replacement gates fail to provide this protection, thereby failing to properly indemnify Mr B. Fairmead was directed to arrange specialist assessment and installation of functioning flood gates or allow Mr B to source his own specialist and pay the quote, plus £200 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman agreed that Fairmead failed to provide an effective and lasting repair. While Fairmead argued the previous gate was standard construction, the ombudsman found sufficient evidence (specialist company invoice, compression seal, removable threshold) that it was a specialist flood gate. More importantly, the ombudsman reasoned that regardless of whether it was specifically marketed as a flood gate, when installed in its previous arrangement it functioned as an effective flood gate, and that is what Mr B lost. The replacement gate, with significant gaps, does not provide this functionality and therefore does not properly indemnify Mr B under his policy cover. The ombudsman rejected Fairmead's argument that a standard gate was a reasonable replacement.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Fairmead Insurance Limited, all decisions | 655 | 44% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website