Not upheld: claim settlement amount, tender process withdrawal, alternative accommodation payment handling complaint against INTACT INSURANCE UK LIMITED trading as RSA

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs S claimed on their home insurance policy for water damage in summer 2024. Intact initially indicated a tender process could be used but changed position three weeks later, instead offering a cash settlement of £34,000+VAT in July 2025. The representative obtained a competing quote of £46,000+VAT, leading to a dispute over settlement adequacy. Intact also mishandled alternative accommodation payments, initially refusing reimbursement for charges it later accepted were unfair. The ombudsman found Intact's settlement offer fair and reasonable based on comparative cost analysis, determined that the tender process withdrawal caused no demonstrable loss, and upheld the compensation of £2,100 as appropriate for the distress caused by poor AA handling.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Intact made an initial mistake in communicating about the tender process, Mr and Mrs S did not suffer demonstrable loss as a result. The settlement offer of £34,000+VAT was found to be fair and reasonable based on comparison of priced scopes, with material differences (particularly in flooring costs) being justified by Intact's preferential contractor rates and like-for-like specifications. The ombudsman noted that Intact's refusal to enter into a joint contract with the representative's appointed contractor was not unreasonable, as insurers cannot require their own contractors to be managed by third-party representatives. The compensation of £2,100 was deemed appropriate for the sustained distress caused by poor handling of AA payments and miscommunication, though the ombudsman found that not all delays were attributable to Intact.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website