Not upheld: claim handling - dispute over scope of repairs, validation of costs, and settlement amount complaint against Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S claimed for water damage to his rental property in March 2024 and complained about Great Lakes' handling of the claim. He alleged Great Lakes agreed to a £17,000 settlement but only paid trace and access costs, refused to address additional damage discovered, and failed to provide panel contractors initially. Great Lakes maintained it reasonably requested validation of escalated repair costs it believed were inflated, and that Mr S had insisted on using his own contractor for urgency. The ombudsman found Great Lakes acted fairly in accommodating Mr S's contractor preference, reasonably requesting validation when costs increased substantially, and fairly issuing a letter of concern. The complaint was not upheld, and the £350 compensation offered was deemed adequate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr S clearly communicated his preference to use his own contractor from the beginning due to urgency, which Great Lakes reasonably accommodated. Great Lakes acted fairly in requesting validation information when the scope and costs increased substantially, as it was entitled to validate claims and had concerns about inflated pricing. The letter of concern was not unreasonable as it was issued after the scope had changed significantly from the original April 2024 agreement. The compensation offered was fair recognition of the service failures during the period of non-communication.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website