Partially upheld: unfair claim handling, improper application of policy excesses, poor service delivery complaint against UK Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6176691 of 2026-05-17T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim handling, improper application of policy excesses, poor service delivery complaint against UK Insurance Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6176691 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | UK Insurance Limited |
| Product | landlord insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim handling, improper application of policy excesses, poor service delivery |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | UKI must: (1) reconsider the claim applying only 8 separate excesses instead of 11; (2) consider the loss of rent claim along with council tax and utility bills in line with policy terms upon receipt of evidence from Mr and Mrs S; (3) pay £750 compensation (increased from £500) to reflect ongoing service issues and lack of consideration for lost rental income claim. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs S complained about UKI's handling of their landlord insurance claim for malicious damage to their rental property following tenant eviction. UKI declined parts of the claim citing neglect and applied 11 separate excesses, arguing the damage occurred over time. Mr and Mrs S disputed this, arguing the damage was caused in related incidents during the eviction. The Ombudsman found the damage consisted of 8 distinct incidents (wallpaper tearing, crowbar damage, plaster impact, cigarette burns, carpet damage, bath panel, kitchen floor, and fireplace damage) that could reasonably be attributed to a single hostile event, not gradual wear and tear. The Ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, requiring UKI to apply only 8 excesses, consider the loss of rent claim with evidence, and increase compensation to £750 for poor service delivery that fell short of regulatory standards.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The Ombudsman found that while the damage consisted of separate distinct incidents (wallpaper tearing, crowbar damage, plaster impact damage, cigarette burns, carpet damage, bath panel damage, kitchen floor damage, and fireplace damage), these could reasonably be attributed to a single hostile incident by the tenant during eviction rather than gradual wear and tear. Although the damage occurred in different areas and forms, the pattern was consistent with malicious behaviour in a short timeframe. The Ombudsman rejected UKI's application of 11 excesses as too strict an interpretation of the policy and not fairly demonstrated. The Ombudsman also found UKI's service fell short of ICOBS standards due to poor communication, lack of clear reasoning, and failure to properly consider the loss of rent claim. The inspection evidence was insufficient to prove damage occurred gradually, and the gas man's later account was unreliable due to time elapsed.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| UK Insurance Limited, all decisions | 3,730 | 33% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website