Upheld: unfair claim settlement decision and poor claim handling complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6292603 of 2026-05-12T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim settlement decision and poor claim handling complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6292603 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-12T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited |
| Product | buildings insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim settlement decision and poor claim handling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | LV directed to: (1) reimburse the cost of replacement Accoya windows (£13,440.06) plus any interest Mrs H incurred; (2) include in settlement the repair of timber windows (£9,000), skimming of windows and door reveals (£300 and £300), and builders attendance (£1,008), reimbursing these sums with 8% interest from date paid if already completed by Mrs H; (3) pay total compensation of £800 less any sums already paid. |
Summary
Mrs H complained about LV's handling of an escape of water damage claim at her late mother's property. LV initially included windows in the scope of works but later declined coverage, claiming no evidence showed water damage to the windows. Mrs H provided photographs and a manufacturer's report demonstrating water ingress damage requiring replacement. The ombudsman found LV should have conducted a recommended detailed inspection rather than relying on general assumptions. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the evidence supported that water damage occurred and directed LV to reimburse window replacement costs, associated items, interest, and pay £800 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that LV failed to conduct a recommended detailed inspection of the windows despite the condition being clearly in dispute. Instead, LV relied on general statements about how timber and Accoya windows would be expected to perform, which the ombudsman found less persuasive than the specific evidence Mrs H provided. The photographs and manufacturer's report demonstrated damage consistent with water ingress, including mould, delamination and rot. The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities and concluded the escape of water caused damage requiring replacement. LV's failure to inspect, combined with the evidence provided, meant LV had not done enough to show the items fell outside policy coverage.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited, all decisions | 1,945 | 27% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website