Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against V (limited company)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6418359 of 2026-07-02T00:00:00+00:00. Home insurance claim disputes complaint against V (limited company). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6418359 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | V (limited company) |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Home insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The ombudsman noted that Hiscox indicated it would reconsider its position if V provided further supporting evidence on rental and utility costs, and that Hiscox had made clear it would review matters if V provided additional evidence on other aspects of the business interruption claim. |
Summary
V, a limited company, claimed on its business protection insurance with Hiscox following a water escape in November 2022 that caused extensive damage and mould, preventing the business from reopening. Hiscox paid approximately £27,000 for business interruption losses until January 2024 but refused to extend the indemnity period beyond that date or pay the contents claim, having offset it against £10,000 recovered from the third party responsible for the leak. V disputed Hiscox's treatment of rent and utility costs as savings and the offset of the third-party payment. The ombudsman found Hiscox's decisions reasonable, concluding that by January 2024 the insured damage would have been remedied and subsequent losses resulted from the landlord's failure to restore the premises, that V provided no clear evidence contradicting the utility and rent reductions shown in management accounts, and that the third-party payment clearly related to property damage and therefore properly offset the contents claim.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the policy terms to determine that Hiscox was entitled to limit the indemnity period to January 2024 because damage to contents would have been remedied by then, and ongoing issues appeared to stem from the landlord's failure to restore premises rather than the original insured damage. On savings, the ombudsman found Hiscox's position reasonable given management accounts showed utility reductions and rent was not paid post-incident, and V failed to provide clear evidence to the contrary despite being asked. On the third-party offset, the ombudsman concluded that as the third party's letter specifically referenced 'property damage claim' and the £10,000 exceeded V's contents claim, it was reasonable to treat this as recovery of the insured loss rather than an uninsured loss.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| V (limited company), all decisions | 1 | 0% |
| Home insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 24,376 | 38% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 51,462 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website