Not upheld: claims handling, delays, poor communication, scope of repairs complaint against Lloyds Bank General Insurance Limited (trading as Halifax)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs W claimed for subsidence damage to their conservatory after noticing cracks and operational issues with doors and windows. Halifax conducted a 10-month monitoring period, identified minimal movement, and decided to repair rather than replace the conservatory. Mr and Mrs W disputed this approach, claiming the UPVC specialist said replacement was necessary and that the root cause had not been addressed. Halifax paid £850 compensation for delays and poor communication. The ombudsman found Halifax's repair decision reasonable based on expert reports and monitoring data, and determined the compensation already paid was sufficient for the service failures.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Halifax's decision to repair rather than replace the conservatory was reasonable based on expert reports showing minimal damage and minimal movement during monitoring. The ombudsman found no evidence supporting the need for replacement and noted that the policy gave Halifax the option to repair or cash settle. Regarding delays and customer service failures, the ombudsman considered the £850 compensation already paid to be reasonable under FOS guidance for claims causing substantial distress over a sustained period.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website