Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P and Mr P2 complained to Aviva about its handling of a home emergency insurance claim following water damage to their property in July 2025. The first contractor concluded the leak was from the roof and made a temporary repair, but a second inspection in September 2025 identified the actual source as a loft tank leak. Mr P claimed the first contractor failed to properly inspect the loft despite his insistence, resulting in further avoidable damage and a £450 excess payment on his home insurance claim. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding the first contractor's actions reasonable based on the information available and concluding Mr P would likely have needed to claim under his home insurance regardless of the initial misdiagnosis.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that the first contractor acted reasonably based on the information available at the time. Mr P's initial report indicated he thought the leak was from the roof, and there was insufficient evidence that he asked the first contractor to inspect the loft. The first contractor's photos supported their identification of possible roof issues. Although the second inspection later identified a loft tank leak, this did not automatically mean the first contractor acted unreasonably. The ombudsman also found that substantial damage had already occurred when the first contractor attended, making it likely Mr P would have needed to claim under his home insurance regardless.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website