Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Intact Insurance UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L claimed under his landlord insurance policy for theft and property damage after his tenant vacated the property. Intact accepted the claim but declined cover for property damage and a barbecue left outside. Mr L complained about both the decline and processing delays. The ombudsman found that while Intact incorrectly cited a non-existent policy exclusion, their decision to decline most damage claims was reasonable because the damage resulted from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, or tenant lifestyle choices rather than insured perils. The barbecue was fairly declined due to a standard exclusion for items left outside. The £300 compensation for avoidable delays was deemed appropriate, and the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the principle that landlord insurance covers unforeseen one-off events (insured perils) such as malicious or accidental damage, but not wear and tear, gradual damage, or maintenance issues. For each declined element, the ombudsman assessed whether the damage was more likely caused by an insured peril or by gradual wear, tenant lifestyle choices, or lack of care. The nature of most damage (wallpaper seams, screw holes, painted walls, slight carpet discolouration) was inconsistent with either malicious intent or specific accidents, making them uninsurable. The barbecue exclusion for items left outside is standard and fair. While Intact made an error in citing a non-existent policy exclusion, this did not affect the fairness of the outcome.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website