Upheld: unfair claim decline - escape of water from neighbouring property complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6398019 of 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim decline - escape of water from neighbouring property complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6398019 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | AXA Insurance UK Plc |
| Product | home insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim decline - escape of water from neighbouring property |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | AXA directed to: (1) accept the claim; (2) pay Mr H and Ms L £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the unfair decline; (3) amend internal and external databases to reflect the accurate claim position. AXA must then consider the claim against remaining policy terms and assess whether costs reasonably incurred should be reimbursed. Further questions about extent of cover, claim value, trace and access costs, or settlement are matters for AXA to consider in the first instance. |
Summary
Mr H and Ms L complained that AXA unfairly declined their water damage claim. Water damage to their party wall was caused by a leaking rainwater downpipe belonging to the neighbouring gatehouse. AXA declined the claim, arguing the damage resulted from faulty damp-proofing and was not an insured escape of water. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the policy covers 'fixed, domestic pipes' without limiting cover to internal pipes, and the expert evidence clearly showed the leaking pipe was the main cause of damage. AXA was directed to accept the claim and pay £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard and found: (1) there was an undisputed escape of water from the neighbouring rainwater pipe; (2) the policy wording covers 'fixed, domestic pipes' without limiting cover to internal pipes only; (3) the leaking pipe was the main cause of damage, not faulty damp-proofing, as evidenced by the surveyor's conclusion that if the damp-proofing had failed from earlier works, the damp would have arisen much earlier, yet Mr H only discovered it after 20+ years; (4) the surveyor identified the pipe as the only obvious source of moisture; (5) AXA failed to show exactly how the property was defective relative to building standards at the time of installation; (6) the policy does not require an escape of water to be sudden or one-off; and (7) it was not fair to impose a maintenance requirement on Mr H for a part of the building he was not responsible for and could not reasonably have known would cause damage.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| AXA Insurance UK Plc, all decisions | 3,723 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website