Not upheld: subsidence claim handling and service quality complaint against HDI Global Specialty SE

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M claimed for subsidence damage to her home in August 2022, with investigations identifying root-induced clay shrinkage from vegetation including local authority trees. After removal of vegetation from Mrs M's and her neighbour's properties, the property was deemed stable in July 2024, though the local authority refused to remove their trees. Mrs M disputed the stability assessment and demanded underpinning or tree removal, but HDI declined underpinning as unnecessary for a stable property. Following a monitoring gap and change in loss adjusting company, further monitoring was agreed in 2025. HDI offered £350 compensation for service shortfalls. The ombudsman found HDI's position reasonable given the complex nature of subsidence claims and the monitoring evidence supporting stability, and upheld the £350 compensation offer.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman recognised that subsidence claims are complex and time-consuming, typically requiring investigations, mitigation, and extended monitoring before repairs can proceed. The property was deemed stable based on monitoring results following removal of Mrs M's and neighbour's vegetation, with only minimal seasonal movement thereafter. Underpinning is a last resort and was not deemed necessary for a lasting and effective repair when the property was already stable. The monitoring gap between July 2024 and July 2025 was reasonable as the property had been deemed stable and was moving to repairs. The appointment of a new loss adjusting company did not unreasonably extend the claim. HDI's offer of £350 compensation for service shortfalls in communication and timeliness was fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website