Not upheld: claim mishandling, choice of repair method, alleged misrepresentation of repair method complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that LV mishandled his 2018 subsidence claim by choosing resin injections instead of tree removal and underpinning, and that the property has continued to move since the repairs. He also claimed he was not informed the resin was part of a pilot scheme and sought compensation for diminished property value, distress, and other losses totalling £200,000. LV rejected most of the complaint, stating resin injections are an established effective repair method, and offered £150 compensation for some delays. The ombudsman found the resin injections were a reasonable repair choice based on available evidence, there was no material misrepresentation, and the £150 compensation for delays was fair, declining to uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that it is LV's choice how to repair the property, and LV made its decision based on available evidence. While tree removal and underpinning would be effective, this does not mean resin injections would be ineffective. There was no persuasive evidence that resin injections would more likely than not be ineffective in this particular case. The resin was not materially misrepresented as it is a known effective repair method. The policy excludes loss of value resulting from repairs. Some delays occurred but £150 was fair compensation. Ongoing monitoring is the appropriate course of action at this stage.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website