Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against HSB Engineering Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N and Mrs N purchased a leasehold property and discovered damp, condensation and black mould in June 2025, which they reported to the developer and subsequently claimed under their HSB building warranty in December 2025. HSB instructed a loss adjuster to inspect the property, and multiple expert inspections (including by the building insurer's contractor and an independent surveyor) were conducted between January and March 2026. All experts concluded the primary cause was occupational humidity rather than a structural defect, with intrusive investigations finding no defects in the building fabric. HSB declined the claim as the warranty only covers major damage caused by construction defects. The ombudsman upheld HSB's decision, finding that no structural defect had been identified and that HSB had acted fairly and reasonably, even going beyond normal expectations in its handling of the claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that the evidence from multiple independent experts (contractors A and B, and surveyor H) consistently concluded the primary cause of the damp and mould was occupational humidity rather than a structural defect in the property. The warranty cover requires both a defect in construction and major damage caused by that defect. Since no structural defect was identified despite extensive investigations including intrusive testing of blockwork and cavities, HSB fairly declined the claim. The ombudsman noted that HSB went beyond normal expectations by continuing to consider points raised by the complainants, paying for alternative accommodation and parking costs, and offering a new loss adjuster.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website