Upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against British Gas Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service about British Gas Insurance Limited's handling of a home emergency insurance claim for blocked drainage. After British Gas attended on 28 May 2025 and removed/refitted a toilet, the drainage blocked again within days. On 10 June, a British Gas engineer's use of a plunger caused the pan connector to fail, resulting in soiled water escaping across the ensuite floor and bedroom carpet, which Mr S and his family had to clean up themselves. Mr S, who is registered blind, also complained about missed appointments, poor communication, and misdiagnosis of the blockage cause. The ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding the pan connector leak, finding the timeline of events indicated British Gas damaged it during the 28 May visit, but rejected the misdiagnosis complaint as the CCTV evidence supported British Gas's findings. The ombudsman awarded £750 compensation for distress and inconvenience, rejecting Mr S's request for £4,000 and reimbursement of third-party costs.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while British Gas's diagnosis of limescale and back-falling pipe as blockage causes was not unreasonable based on CCTV evidence, British Gas was responsible for the pan connector failure. The timeline of events was decisive: the pan connector was not leaking before the 28 May visit when British Gas removed and refitted the toilet; the toilet saw minimal use afterwards due to the unfixed flush mechanism; and the connector failed approximately two weeks later. This timeline pointed most strongly to damage occurring during British Gas's work on 28 May. The ombudsman rejected alternative explanations (pre-existing defect, back-falling pipe stress) as lacking sufficient evidence. The ombudsman also found British Gas failed to provide adequate assistance to Mr S during the 10 June visit, particularly given his vulnerability as a registered blind person and the availability of wet-vacs.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website