Not upheld: claim handling and investigation procedures complaint against Amtrust Specialty Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M and Ms S complained about Amtrust's handling of a claim under their LABC New Homes Warranty Policy for water ingress damage to their flat, potentially caused by a defect in common areas. They disputed Amtrust's decision to treat it as a single claim rather than a common parts claim, objected to Amtrust's refusal to share investigation results before completing salt tests, and argued that the £150 compensation offered was insufficient. The ombudsman found that Amtrust's approach was reasonable, that relying on the appointed expert's opinion regarding salt tests was fair, and that the compensation adequately reflected the avoidable early delays and communication failures. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Amtrust's treatment of the claim as a single claim (rather than a common parts claim) was reasonable because only Mr M and Ms S's flat damage was being claimed for, and the RMC was not a policyholder. The ombudsman accepted that the appointed expert's opinion on the necessity of salt tests was reasonable and that it was not unfair for Amtrust to withhold partial investigation results pending completion of the full report. The ombudsman determined that the £150 compensation already offered adequately reflected the short-term distress caused by the avoidable early delays and poor communication, and that subsequent delays arising from the salt test dispute were not solely attributable to Amtrust's wrongdoing.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website