Thousands dispute decisions in building insurance claims

Published on Friday 3 September 2010 13:54

BUILDINGS insurance remains stubbornly high up the league table of complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman, which is not surprising.

When disaster strikes at home, it can have a devastating and disrupting impact on every aspect of our lives. Claims for flooding, fires or subsidence can be expensive, running into tens of thousands of pounds. Insurers may not always agree with the policyholder about the best way of remedying a particular problem or event.

For this reason many of the disputes which consumers bring to the Financial Ombudsman Service are particularly sensitive and emotive.

Over the last year, buildings insurance featured yet again in the top five most complained about insurance products, with the FOS receiving more than 3,500 complaints.

While many of these complaints centred on claims which had been refused outright, around a quarter were about the quality of repairs carried out under an insurance policy.

Once an insurance company has agreed that a claim should be paid, contractors often need to be appointed to carry out any necessary repairs. If the insurance company appoints the contractors itself, it has a responsibility to make sure they are sufficiently skilled to carry out the repairs and that they are done to a satisfactory standard.

In one case recently investigated by the ombudsman, the wooden flooring on the ground floor of Mark Adams' home was seriously damaged by flood water. Under the terms of his building insurance policy, the business appointed contractors to replace the flooring. However, several months later the floor started to warp. The business inspected the floor and agreed that the contractors' work had been unsatisfactory and arranged for a different contractor to re-lay the floor.

However, after only a short while, the floor began to warp again. This time the insurance company said it was unable to repair the floor as the problem had been caused by "seasonal movements".

Adams referred his complaint to the ombudsman service. From the information provided, the ombudsman could find nothing to support the insurance company's claim that the problems were a result of "seasonal movements".

The ombudsman service said that the business should arrange for a suitable contractor to replace the floor and pay the policyholder 500 for the disruption and delay.

In another case, Sarah Gibbons realised there were problems with her roof when damp patches appeared on her bedroom ceiling. Following an inspection of the property, the business agreed to pay for the repairs needed and arranged for contractors to carry out the work.

Their finished effort caused her to complain to the insurance company, on the grounds that she thought the standard of workmanship was poor. A further inspection of the property led the business to arrange further repairs be carried out. However, the policyholder remained unhappy. Following this, Ms Gibbons complained to the business on several occasions and each time the business approved further repairs.

Eventually she decided to sell her cottage. Following the sale, she complained to the business that the poor quality of the repairs had forced her to accept a lower price for the property. The business did not accept her complaint so she referred her complaint to the ombudsman.

The ombudsman service decided that the repairs were eventually completed to a good standard and did not agree that the repair work affected the sale price of the property.

However, the ombudsman service did find that the initial work had been substandard and that Sarah had been subject to severe delays in sorting this out. The ombudsman said the business should pay her 500.

• Emma Parker is a manager at the Financial Ombudsman Service