Partially upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6418340 of 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6418340 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Aviva Insurance Limited |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Aviva Insurance Limited to pay Mrs R £100 in compensation for communication failure and distress caused. Ombudsman noted that if Mrs R obtains a professional report evidencing a dual cause (leak from pipework and toilet), Aviva should reconsider the claim and cooperate in reassessing a fair contribution to remedial work costs and report costs. |
Summary
Mrs R complained about Aviva's handling of a home emergency insurance claim for damp and flooring damage caused by a suspected leak. Aviva sent multiple engineers who found a loose toilet pan connector causing dripping water on two occasions but determined the underlying flooring deterioration was day-to-day maintenance not covered by the policy. The ombudsman found the substantive claim was not covered but upheld the complaint regarding Aviva's failure to communicate engineer recommendations and poor investigation clarity. Aviva was ordered to pay £100 compensation for communication failure, with the option for Mrs R to obtain an independent professional report for reconsideration if it evidences a dual cause of damage.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that on the balance of probabilities, a leak from the toilet caused the flooring damage and damp/mould issues, as water was observed dripping on two occasions. However, the flooring deterioration and underlying pipework condition constitute day-to-day maintenance excluded under the policy. The engineer's assessment that the leak could recur until the floor issue was addressed was reasonable. While Aviva's investigations were incomplete and inconsistent, and it failed to communicate properly with Mrs R about recommendations, this did not constitute unfair or unreasonable conduct regarding the substantive repair claim. However, compensation was warranted for the communication failure and distress caused.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Aviva Insurance Limited, all decisions | 5,113 | 27% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 34,193 | 32% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 20,959 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website