Not upheld: claims handling - alternative accommodation rejection and alleged delays complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Churchill Home Insurance

Decision detail

Summary

Ms B and Mr G complained about UKI's handling of their home insurance claim for water damage. The primary disputes concerned UKI's rejection of their chosen alternative accommodation as too expensive and alleged delays in progressing the claim. The ombudsman found that UKI properly considered their requirements and offered reasonable alternatives in line with policy terms. Regarding delays, the ombudsman determined that the complainants controlled whether to provide consent for the landlord to release validation information needed to progress the claim, and their failure to do so was not UKI's responsibility. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that UKI properly considered the complainants' requirements and provided reasonable alternatives in line with the policy terms. While Ms B's choice of AA was not unreasonable per se, the substantial cost relative to the policy limit justified UKI's rejection. Regarding delays, the ombudsman determined that the claim's progression was within the complainants' control, as they needed to provide consent for the landlord to release validation information. The policy terms explicitly require claimants to provide relevant information and evidence requested by the insurer. Therefore, UKI was not responsible for delays caused by the complainants' failure to provide this consent.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website