Not upheld: poor workmanship complaint handling and procedural fairness complaint against Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs G complained to AIE about drainage repair work completed at her home, raising concerns about quality and submitting a list of questions. AIE's March 2025 final response letter offered contractor reattendance and £500 compensation but failed to address her questions and overlooked a contractor allegation of poor behaviour. The ombudsman found AIE's proposed remedy was fair and reasonable despite procedural failings, as contractor reattendance is standard practice in poor workmanship cases. The £500 compensation was upheld as appropriate for the service failures and five-month timeframe.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While AIE failed to address Mrs G's supplementary questions in its complaint response, this procedural failing did not make the proposed remedy (contractor reattendance) unfair or unreasonable. In poor workmanship claims, it is standard practice for insurers to first have the accused contractor reattend to assess and resolve issues. The allegation of poor behaviour was minor and quickly overcome. The £500 compensation offered was appropriate given the five-month timeframe from claim to final response and AIE's acknowledged poor correspondence and slow progression.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website