Advantage Insurance Company Limited · DRN-5947498

The complaint Mr and Mrs H complained that Advantage Insurance Company Limited (“Advantage”) unfairly declined their claim for a storm damaged chimney stack, under their home buildings insurance policy. I’ll refer to Mr H for ease. What happened Mr H said the render on his chimney stack was damaged by debris from the named storm “Eowyn”, which impacted the UK on 24 January 2025. He said some render had been damaged. But he said the remaining render was without staining or moss growth, which showed it was fixed in place. Mr H said this indicated the damage was the result of “traumatic impact” and not from a gradual cause. Mr H contacted Advantage in June 2025 to make a claim. He provided photos and engaged in a video call to highlight the damage. He was subsequently told his claim had been declined. Mr H didn’t accept this outcome and complained. In its final complaint response Advantage told Mr H that it had reviewed the photos, as well as the comments from its in-house surveyors. It maintained its decline decision. It said it was satisfied the storm had only highlighted a pre-existing issue with the render. Had the render been in good condition it said it would have survived the storm. In an earlier response the business explained that the render had been damaged gradually, most likely due to the freeze/thaw process. Mr H didn’t think Advantage had treated him fairly and referred the matter to our service. Our investigator didn’t uphold his complaint. He was more persuaded by Advantage’s surveyor’s view that the chimney render had suffered from deterioration due to a gradual cause. He didn’t think a storm was the underlying reason for the damage. Our investigator thought the service provided was reasonable and so didn’t think the business had done anything wrong. Mr H didn’t accept our investigator’s findings. He said a chartered surveyor should have been appointed to inspect the damage. He didn’t think it had shown that a gradual cause was to blame. Additionally, he said our investigator hadn’t considered the Financial Conduct Authority’s (“FCA”) Treating Customer’s Fairly (“TCF”) principles. As an agreement wasn’t reached the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. Having done so I’m not upholding Mr H’s complaint. Let me explain.

-- 1 of 4 --

It’s for the policyholder to show that they’ve suffered an insured loss, fire, flood, theft etc. If they can then, generally speaking, the insurer should pay the claim. This is unless the insurer can reasonably rely on a policy exclusion not to. I’ve thought about how this applies here. Mr H’s policy covers damage caused by a storm. He said this is what caused the damage to his chimney render. So, it’s correct that the claim was considered under a storm cause. There are three questions we take into consideration when determining whether a storm caused the damage in question. These are: • Do we agree that storm conditions occurred on or around the date the damage is said to have happened? • Is the damage claimed for consistent with damage a storm typically causes? • Were the storm conditions the main cause of damage? If any answer to the above questions is no then an insurer can generally, reasonably decline the claim. I’ve looked at the records from a weather station closest to Mr H’s home on 24 January 2025 at the time of storm Eowyn. Wind speeds up to 76mph were recorded. Mr H’s policy provides the following definition for a storm: “Storm A period of violent weather defined as: wind speeds with gusts of at least 48 knots (55 mph, equivalent to storm force 10 on the internationally recognised Beaufort Scale), or torrential rainfall at a rate of at least 25mm per hour, snow to a depth of at least one foot (30cm) in 24 hours or hail of such intensity that it causes damage to hard surfaces or breaks glass.” This information shows that storm conditions were experienced near to Mr H’s home at the time of storm Eowyn. Advantage doesn’t dispute that storm force winds were experienced. This means the answer to question one is yes, and I can move on to the next question. Damage to render isn’t typical of damage caused by a storm. The render was bonded to the chimney stack and should withstand storm force winds. However, I note Mr H’s comments that he felt the damage was caused by debris striking the chimney. This is a very exposed part of the building so on balance I’ll accept that the answer to question to is also yes. The final point I need to be satisfied with is that the storm was the underlying cause of the damage. I’ve read the comments provided by Advantage’s surveyor. I’ve copied the pertinent points below: “.. Even with the presence of rain, wind, or airborne debris, such elements would not usually cause render to fail if it were in sound condition… the conditions appear to have revealed an underlying defect in the render, likely stemming from gradual deterioration or wear and tear—potentially due to age or the cumulative effects of the frost-thaw cycle… This process can ultimately lead to the render detaching”. And: “.. Notably, the bonding agent remains firmly attached to the wall, which is a key indicator that the render itself was already compromised prior to detachment. If the render had failed due to external force alone—such as storm impact—the bonding agent would typically have

-- 2 of 4 --

come away with it. The fact that the agent is still intact supports the conclusion that the render had lost adhesion over time due to underlying deterioration, consistent with wear and tear rather than sudden damage”. Also: “.. the condition of the chimney above the render shows visible signs of wear, including discoloration, moss and staining. These marks, particularly the darkening near the top, may indicate prolonged exposure to environmental elements such as wind, rain, or frost. While no structural cracks are visible in this section, the staining suggests potential weathering of the area, further supporting the assessment that the damage is due to long-term deterioration rather than a single event.” I find the surveyor’s comments persuasive that winds of this magnitude won’t cause render to detach. Additionally, I think he provides a strong argument that the bonding agent had lost its bond with the render. I’ve carefully considered the photos of the chimney stack taken after the damage. Where the render has detached, the bonding agent can clearly be seen still attached to the chimney stack. This adds weight to Advantage’s position that a gradual cause had resulted in deterioration to the render prior to the storm. I’ve read the ‘roof report’ Mr H obtained from the roofer he employed to repair his chimney. This is dated 7 November 2025. The roofer said the render had been ripped from the chimney stack. He said no signs of wear and tear were noticed and that the render had come off due to the wind. I’m not persuaded that winds of the magnitude experienced at the time of Mr H’s loss could have detached the render from his chimney stack. Mr H suggested this was the result of flying debris. But I haven’t seen evidence to support this. I note this isn’t mentioned by his roofer as the cause of the damage. Based on what I’ve read the evidence points to a gradual cause that resulted in deterioration to the chimney render. I don’t doubt that the strong winds acted as a catalyst for the render to detach. But had it been in a good condition this would not have happened. This means the answer to question three is no and Advantage can reasonably decline Mr H’s claim. I’ve thought about Mr H’s concerns regarding the service he received. More specifically that it was inappropriate to be told three times, when making his claim, that this could increase the cost of his insurance. As well as Advantage not providing a copy of its complaint procedure when requested, and the unrelated examples of gradual causes it described. When considering these points I’ve looked at the TCF principles that Mr H referred to. I’ve listened to the call from 5 June 2025 when Mr H logged his claim. Around 15 minutes into the call Advantage’s agent confirmed the policy excess that was payable. She also mentioned that a claim will impact on Mr H’s “claim free years” and the cost of his home insurance. Around two minutes later this information is repeated. Toward the end of the call Mr H raised a query. He queried whether he should submit a claim form. The agent responded that a claim was being logged, she then repeated the information about the impact on the claim free years and cost of insurance. I understand Mr H’s point about the impact of a claim being mentioned several times. The first time it was mentioned the agent asked Mr H if he wanted to proceed, which he did. The second mention was for information, I don’t think it was unreasonable for this to be repeated. Making a claim can result in additional costs for the policyholder. So, it’s important that this information is made clear. The final mention was in response to Mr H’s query about not submitting a claim form. The agent probably gave more information in response to this, than

-- 3 of 4 --

Mr H was asking for. But I don’t think there was an intention to dissuade him from making a claim. I understand why Mr H has highlighted the examples of gradual causes Advantage set out. The examples it gave, in the emails it sent to him, didn’t cause the damage to his chimney stack. But this information was provided to illustrate some of the different causes that are considered gradual in nature. This wasn’t inaccurate. Similarly, although Mr H is dissatisfied that a complaints procedure wasn’t provided when requested, this didn’t prevent him making a complaint. The complaints procedure is available on Advantage’s website. So, although I understand that Mr H found this frustrating. I don’t think this had a significant impact here. I’ve considered the TCF principles when looking at the service issues Mr H raised. But having done so I’m not persuaded that Advantage treated him unfairly. Additionally, although I acknowledge Mr H’s point that a surveyor didn’t inspect the damage in person. It’s clear that Advantage was able to clearly assess the cause of the damage without arranging for a chartered surveyor to perform a site visit. Having considered all of this I don’t think Advantage treated Mr H unfairly when it relied on its policy terms to decline his claim for the reasons it gave. Similarly, I don’t think it provided a poor standard of service. So, I can’t reasonably ask it to do anymore. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs H and Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --