Partially upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Ageas Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained about Ageas's handling of a subsidence claim on his property insurance policy, specifically regarding their proposed garage door replacement and lack of formal monitoring after hedge removal. Mr G maintained the real issue was structural distortion to the garage opening and lintel, not the door itself, and repeatedly raised these concerns with Ageas. The ombudsman found that while Ageas's substantive positions were not unreasonable, they failed to clearly explain their decisions or adequately respond to Mr G's concerns, causing unnecessary confusion and frustration. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part and directed Ageas to pay £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience during the period October 2024 to May 2025.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman could not conclude that underpinning should be carried out or that Ageas's engineers were wrong, as these matters depend on competing professional opinions, the ombudsman found that Ageas failed to adequately explain their position on repairs and respond to Mr G's repeatedly raised concerns. There was avoidable confusion surrounding both the nature of the repairs needed and the monitoring arrangements. The ombudsman expected the insurer to provide clear, fair, and non-misleading information addressing Mr G's concerns, particularly given the claim's history and previous partial upheld complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website