Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6323570 of 2026-07-02T00:00:00+00:00. Home insurance claim disputes complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6323570 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | UK Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | Home insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No additional remedy ordered. UKI's existing offer of £200 compensation for claim handling shortfalls was deemed fair and appropriate. |
Summary
Ms Q claimed under her landlord insurance policy with UKI for flooring damaged by water escaping from a toilet. UKI agreed to cover the floor covering (carpet and vinyl) but refused to cover the subfloor, which it classified as part of the building structure. Ms Q subsequently claimed under her buildings insurance policy, which paid approximately £27,000 for repairs. Ms Q complained that UKI should have covered the subfloor and that delays in appointing a contractor worsened the damage. The ombudsman upheld UKI's policy interpretation, finding the subfloor fell within policy exclusions for floorboards and concrete flooring, and rejected the argument that contractor delays materially increased the buildings insurance claim, noting the leak had been ongoing for some time before UKI's involvement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman analysed the policy definitions and concluded that the subfloor, as described by the engineer (wooden, covering polystyrene and concrete), fell within the exclusions for concrete flooring and floorboards under the fixtures and fittings definition. The subfloor was integrated into the building and removing it would damage the structure, so it could not reasonably be classified as 'landlord's contents' or 'floor coverings'. The fact that the buildings insurer paid for the subfloor replacement supported this interpretation. Regarding claim handling, while there were some shortfalls (delayed contractor appointment, lack of communication), the distress and inconvenience suffered justified the £200 compensation offer. The ombudsman rejected Ms Q's argument that earlier contractor appointment would have prevented the larger buildings insurance claim, noting that the contractor indicated the leak had been ongoing for some time and that damage likely occurred before UKI became involved.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| UK Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line, all decisions | 16 | 12% |
| Home insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 24,376 | 38% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 21,507 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website