Accelerant Insurance UK Limited · DRN-5851478

The complaint Mrs and Mr W complain that Accelerant Insurance UK Limited declined a claim made on their Guarantee Protection insurance. What happened Mrs and Mr W purchased new windows for their property in 2016 and the windows were provided with an insurance backed guarantee, underwritten by Accelerant. In February 2025 Mrs and Mr W contacted Accelerant to make a claim under the guarantee. They explained an issue with the window boards had been noticed about 18 months after the windows had been installed and the window fitter had been contacted to resolve the issue. The window boards were replaced but the issue returned and Mrs and Mr W contacted Accelerant to raise the claim. Accelerant declined the claim. It said the policy was limited to guaranteeing workmanship for 12 months as this was the guarantee provided by the window fitter. The claim was made more than 12 months after the windows had been fitted and although the window fitter completed a repair after this period, this was outside of the timeframe for which the insurance back guarantee was in place. It also said it became aware the window fitter was still in operation and the insurance would only be applicable if a claim was made within the relevant timeframe and the window fitter had ceased trading. So, the claim was not one it could consider for these reasons. Our investigator looked at this complaint and felt Accelerant had made a fair claim decision. They said the window fitter only guaranteed their work for 12 months and the policy provided an insured backstop for this period only – so the claim was made too late for it to be applied. And because the window fitter was still trading, even if the timeframe had been met, Accelerant only had an obligation to step in if the supplier had ceased trading and because they had not, it was fair to decline the claim. Mrs and Mr W didn’t accept the outcome and said the complaint went beyond the dispute about the exclusion and whether this was fairly applied. They felt the product itself is unfair and void in practice from the outset. They didn’t think it was clear the policy was limited to 12 months for the insurance backed guarantee and no reasonable consumer would be aware of this and Mrs and Mr W were not made aware of it. The operating model of the supplier meant it was unlikely that even if brought in time, a claim under the insurance would succeed because of the requirement to show the supplier had ceased trading was difficult to prove. They felt there was a failing with the product to meet the requirements of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). There was contradictory information provided during the claim process and they’ve lost out because of the policy not providing the cover they expected. The investigator said we cannot comment on the policy and whether its terms are unfair – this wasn’t the complaint considered by Accelerant and our remit extended to the complaint

-- 1 of 3 --

raised with it only. But Mrs and Mr W could raise their concerns and complaint with it and the FCA. We couldn’t comment on the advice of the supplier and its repairs carried out under their guarantee as this was done outside of the insurance and couldn’t be considered as a regulated activity. Overall, they didn’t see anything to change their position on the complaint and whether Accelerant had made a fair claim decision. Mrs and Mr W maintained they didn’t think the answer is fair and asked for the case to be referred for decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’ve decided not to uphold this complaint, I know this will be disappointing for Mrs and Mr W, but I’ll explain why I think Accelerant has made a fair claim decision. I appreciate Mrs and Mr W have expressed their concerns about the fairness of this policy and the benefits it provides. This is something they’ve raised as a result of the claim decision but the complaint to Accelerant was whether it fairly declined to accept their claim. It hasn’t provided a broader answer on the benefits of the policy and my remit is limited to the complaint raised and whether the claim decision is fair. If Mrs and Mr W want to make a complaint about the sale of the policy and its overall benefit and value, this needs to be made to Accelerant before this Service can consider it. The insurance backed guarantee cover is set out under section 1 of the policy and says the following: “In respect of the rectification of Defects in the Insured Works: this section of cover shall become effective on the Completion Date and shall run for a period of 10 years, or the periods stated in the Contractors Written Guarantee, whichever is the lesser of those periods. The contractors guarantee says the following: “All structural work will be guaranteed for a period of 12 months from the contract order date in respect of workmanship. Any failure of materials under the terms of this guarantee will be repaired or replaced by XX’s sole discretion. After 1 year, all labour and transport costs will be chargeable items.” I think the policy wording sets out the cover in place and how long this was in place for – with the time during which the insurance backed this. The contractor guarantee for structural work and poor workmanship is guaranteed for 12 months. The insurance is in place to provide an insured guarantee for this period if the supplier has ceased trading. Mrs and Mr W made a claim to the supplier within 18 months to refit the window boards as these had begun to rot because of poor workmanship and material choice. This was after the guarantee period had expired but it agreed to complete the work. When Mrs and Mr W later made a claim for the same work when the issues with the window boards persisted, they approached Accelerant to consider this. Accelerant provided Mrs and Mr W with the claim form and asked for the details of the work being claimed for and I

-- 2 of 3 --

appreciate this meant time was spent providing information that could have been avoided. However, with the claim process, Accelerant required Mrs and Mr W to provide the details of their claim and the copy of the written guarantee provided by the contractor so it could determine whether the claim was one it could accept. So, Mrs and Mr W needed to provide this information to allow the claim decision to be made and the inconvenience of providing this is something which couldn’t be avoided. The guarantee provided by Mrs and Mr W’s window supplier had a number of different timeframes attached to it – depending on the item or work being guaranteed. I appreciate this could cause some confusion but my focus is on whether the claim decision reached by Accelerant when the claim was presented is fair. And based on what I’ve seen and the work claimed for and limit of the guarantee here, its decision is fair as this was limited to 12 months. Even if the 12 month time limit was not relevant – which it is, Accelerant has also shown it thinks the window fitter is still trading and based on the terms of the guarantee, Mrs and Mr W need to approach it to complete the work first. This is a valid point, but I don’t think I need to consider this in detail as the claim has been fairly declined because of the time limit and so whether the window supplier has or has not ceased to trade doesn’t impact this. Overall, I accept it will be disappointing to learn that the insurance backed guarantee didn’t provide the insurance Mrs and Mr W thought it did. But I think the terms of the policy and timeframe for which the guarantee was in place for has been set out clearly and Accelerant has made a fair claim decision inline with the policy terms. As a result, I am not asking it to do anything else. If Mrs and Mr W wish to complain about the sale of the policy and its overall value and worth, this is something they are entitled to do, but I’ve not considered this here as the complaint will need to be raised with Accelerant in the first instance. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I don’t uphold Mrs and Mr W’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs W and Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Thomas Brissenden Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --