Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against AA Underwriting Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B and Mrs B complained about AA's handling and decline of a subsidence claim on their property insurance policy. After noticing cracking around a rear extension in January 2023, Mr B claimed subsidence, but AA declined after conducting extensive investigations including site inspections, arboricultural assessments, and level monitoring, concluding differential movement between the extension and main property was the cause. Mr B obtained an independent structural report supporting subsidence, but the ombudsman found AA's range of expert evidence more persuasive, particularly the extended monitoring showing no significant ongoing movement and the commissioned surveyor's conclusion that no structural remedial works were needed. The ombudsman upheld AA's decision as fair and reasonable and found the £300 compensation already paid for delays to be appropriate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to determine whether AA fairly concluded the damage was not caused by subsidence. While Mr B's evidence identified tree roots and shrinkable clay within influencing distance, the arboricultural report indicated level monitoring would be required to demonstrate a link to the damage. Critically, the extended level monitoring carried out by AA did not identify significant ongoing movement, and the tree roots were not removed. AA's commissioned surveyor concluded no underpinning works were recommended and any differential movement had ceased or was minimal. The ombudsman found AA's range of expert evidence more persuasive than Mr B's single structural report. The ombudsman also noted that evidence submitted after AA's complaint response and the provisional decision fell outside the scope of review, as the role was to assess whether AA acted fairly based on evidence available to them at the time of their decision, not to act as a new claims handler.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website