Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Society of Lloyd's

Decision detail

Summary

Ms D complained to the FOS about Society of Lloyd's handling of reports of a second leak at her rental property whilst a water damage claim was ongoing. She was unhappy that SoL's appointed contractors concluded the dampness was due to rising damp rather than a leak, and that dryers were not installed promptly. SoL asked Ms D to provide a report from her own appointed plumber to support her position, which she had not yet done at the time of their final response. The ombudsman found SoL's approach to be fair and reasonable, as they were entitled to rely on expert findings and request further evidence before progressing the claim, and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that SoL was entitled to rely on the findings of the two independent expert contractors they appointed unless further evidence demonstrated they were wrong. It was reasonable for SoL to ask Ms D to provide evidence of an insured loss or damage by obtaining a report from her appointed plumber. It was also not unreasonable to delay installing dryers until the source of the dampness (whether leak or rising damp) had been identified and addressed. Without the plumber's report that SoL had requested, it was difficult for SoL to properly assess the claim or uphold the complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website