Not upheld: claim handling, remediation decision, service delays complaint against INTACT INSURANCE UK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained that INTACT refused to authorize further subsidence remediation works beyond Helibars and crack filling, and that there were delays in handling his claim. Mr T commissioned his own engineer who recommended underpinning and other measures, but INTACT's contractor was slow to respond. INTACT acknowledged service failures and paid £300 compensation but maintained its position on remediation. The ombudsman found INTACT's reliance on two years of professional monitoring showing property stabilization to be reasonable and fair, and concluded Mr T's engineer had not provided contradictory evidence of continued movement to justify further works. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found INTACT's reliance on two years of professional monitoring data and expert input to be reasonable and fair. The monitoring showed the property had stabilized following tree pruning, with only seasonal movement observed thereafter. The ombudsman concluded that Mr T's engineer had not provided evidence of continued movement outside normal seasonal levels to contradict INTACT's position, and therefore INTACT was not required to provide further technical evidence or authorize additional mitigation works. The compensation for service delays was deemed appropriate under FOS guidelines.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website