Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6261833

The complaint Mr M complains that Aviva Insurance Limited (“Aviva”) unfairly declined a storm claim made under his home insurance policy. Any reference to Mr M or Aviva includes respective agents or representatives. What happened The background of this complaint is well known between the parties, so I’ve just provided a summary of what’s happened here. • Mr M held his home insurance with Aviva. On 7 December 2024 Mr M contacted Aviva to make a claim for storm damage, describing a falling branch during a storm causing part of a brick boundary wall to collapse. And he provided Aviva with photos of the collapsed wall. • On 11 December 2024 Aviva declined the claim. It said it accepted there were storm conditions (56 mph winds) at the time of the damage, but while these wind speeds may damage a fence or tree branches it said a brick wall should be able to withstand them. Aviva said as only part of the wall had fallen, this indicated it may have been a weaker part of the wall. And Aviva commented on there being lots of vegetation alongside missing mortar from the remaining parts of the wall. Aviva said this indicated the wall had been compromised over time due to the surrounding conditions. • Mr M disagreed, saying the storm caused a tree branch to fall onto the wall and fence, which combined with the storm winds, caused damage to the wall. • On 27 December 2024 Aviva issued its final response letter, reiterating its position. • Mr M brought his complaint to this Service, saying: o The brick wall was in good condition and had been regularly maintained since 2004. He described his maintenance of the wooden fence and surrounding vegetation that ran parallel to the brick wall. o The tree that overhung the wall was around 50 feet tall, and a 10-foot-long heavy branch fell around 40 feet onto the wall and fence causing it to collapse. After a fence post and panel had broken the wind upon the unstable fence caused a leverage force on the brick wall leading to its collapse. o Aviva hadn’t carried out a proper inspection, unfairly making its decision on four pictures. Aviva had asked for no further evidence, nor had it sent a surveyor or expert to review the damage. And its comments about the existing condition of the wall were unsubstantiated as it hadn’t inspected it. o Mr M replaced the fallen wall with a wooden fence for £6,582. He highlighted this would’ve cost around £20,000 had this been a replacement brick wall. • Our Investigator initially upheld the complaint saying Aviva provided little to support its comments about the pre-loss condition of the wall when declining the claim. And

-- 1 of 11 --

given the size of the tree and branch that fell, and the height it fell from, she felt it was reasonable that it could’ve damaged a well-maintained wall. So, she told Aviva to pay £6,582, plus 8% simple interest and £100 in compensation. • Aviva disagreed. It said it didn’t dispute that a storm occurred and a tree branch had fallen. But it said it was evident the condition of the wall pre-claim had showed signs of deterioration over time. Aviva said there was excessive vegetation on and around the collapsed wall within the photos Mr M had submitted. It said the photos showed mortar missing and that it was in poor condition, and the tree branch within the photo is small and not of sufficient size or weight to cause the collapse seen in the images. • The Investigator issued another assessment and didn’t uphold the complaint, saying the engineer’s comments put forward by Aviva were persuasive and had changed her mind on the proximate cause of the loss. • Mr M disagreed and asked for all documents, information, comments received by Aviva including names, qualifications and professional memberships of all the surveyors and engineers quoted. He also asked for all structural damage calculations/measurements, and all wind speed reports and the locations of where the wind speeds were measured. • In early November 2025, our Investigator provided Mr M with a copy of Aviva’s technical report, the weather report she’d reviewed, as well as submissions from Aviva that she felt were material to her outcome. And she highlighted other documents that were relevant, but Mr M already had (including copies of the assessments and the policy book). • Mr M responded. In summary he felt Aviva’s evidence was not an expert engineer’s report. And he reiterated concerns about the qualification of the agent who gave the commentary. Mr M also said the ‘weather report’ was from Aviva’s system and it should’ve disclosed the specific location where the measurements were taken from. Mr M also said this referred to other claims in this location. • The Investigator responded: o The weather report was from a source we’d expect an insurer to use and took data from weather stations, satellite data and digital modelling. But this wasn’t material here as there was no dispute a storm took place. o She wouldn’t request details of other claims from Aviva – and her focus was on whether Aviva had treated Mr M fairly in the circumstances of his claim. o She didn’t have the names and qualifications of Aviva’s agents, but this hadn’t changed her mind as she felt the evidence put forward by their technical team was persuasive in determining the proximate cause of the damage. • Mr M provided a substantial submission to the Service. In summary: o Mr M provided commentary from a structural engineer (“Mr C”) from 30 December 2025 that he said supported his position. o Mr M said Aviva had wrongfully sought to reverse the burden of proof upon him when seeking to rely upon an exclusion. And Mr C’s independent expert opinion (on the balance of probabilities) supported his position. It was no longer possible to provide any further evidence in regard to the wall as it had since been replaced – and Aviva had its opportunity to inspect it. o Mr M made reference to the Civil Procedural Rules and discussed the weight that should be placed on Aviva’s evidence, given its author’s qualifications were not disclosed. o Mr M reiterated the level of maintenance that had taken place since 2004. He

-- 2 of 11 --

suggested the likely location of the weather reading was from some distance away – and that the actual winds experienced at his property were greater than 56mph as the property sits in a valley. o He said Aviva never provided evidence to show the equivalent damage wouldn’t have been caused to a modern wall. o Mr M outlined the costs he was seeking in this case. He said he sought for Aviva to pay the cost of erecting the wooden fence as well as dismantling it, then replacing it with a brick wall (~£20,000). And he said Aviva should pay the costs of Mr C’s report (£200), and suitable compensation for Mr M’s time (he calculated 30 hours at his hourly rate of £261) alongside 8% interest. • Aviva reviewed Mr C’s comments and provided a further submission from its technical team. In summary: o It disagreed with Mr C, saying the available evidence supported progressive deterioration, vegetation induced weakening, and long-term mortar decay as the primary cause of failure. And it said the conclusions drawn in Mr C’s report were not consistent with the physical evidence in the photographs. o It commented on the condition of the mortar, the impact of the vegetation, and suggested there was no clear impact point from a falling branch. It did not believe the branch in question would be able to produce a collapse of that nature without pre-existing structural weakness. It also commented that the branch sat atop of the debris instead of underneath it, suggesting it had fallen after the wall had collapsed. o It made reference to publicly available street level images from a well-known online map provider (“G”). it said these showed vegetation overgrowth across 2016 – 2023 and progressive distortion of the masonry line from 2021. It said this challenged Mr C’s position that the wall was in “reasonable condition”. • Our Investigator looked at the matter again in light of the submissions, in summary: o Mr C’s report was limited and provided little in the way of technical explanations, so she didn’t think this was as persuasive as the submission from Aviva’s technical team. o She reviewed the photo evidence alongside Aviva’s statements, and said numerous bricks had no visible mortar, and were in a loose scattered pile which indicated wear and tear. She also referenced Aviva’s commentary about the presence of ivy damaging a wall when mortar was weakened or missing and vegetation applied loading pressure. o The reference to 800 joules were based on Mr M’s description alone, and there was no evidence to support the dimensions, mass, density or condition of the branch – and she didn’t think this was persuasive. And its commentary about the bricks sitting on top of the collapsed bricks suggesting the wall had already fallen was persuasive. o The online street level images supported vegetation overgrowth which aligned with Aviva’s comments that the failure occurred over time. She thought this was persuasive. • Mr M responded and asked for an Ombudsman’s decision. He requested further time to liaise with his independent structural engineer and said reliance on images from online that hadn’t been sent to him was unfair and he asked for Aviva’s submissions. • The Investigator shared the report and referenced using the same map tool (G) that Aviva had referred to. She said she wouldn’t look to grant further time to obtain

-- 3 of 11 --

another expert opinion – but said if Mr M were to obtain this, she would expect Aviva to consider this in the first instance, and the matter may then be brought to our Service. • Mr M raised concerns about the use of the G images as a source instead of Aviva providing the photos itself directly. And he reiterated his desire to have a further extension to allow him to liaise with his engineer. On 17 March 2026 I issued my provisional decision, outlining why I intended on upholding this complaint. I’ve included an extract of this below. “Mr M’s home insurance policy covers him for various perils, such as fire, storm, escape of water, falling trees or branches and others. In this case, from Mr M’s first communication with Aviva he stated that the damage to his wall was due to the storm and the falling branch from a tree that overhangs the wall. Mr M described the branch as around 10 feet long and said it fell from around 40 feet high onto the brick wall and fence – causing its collapse. The crux of this complaint to date has concerned the storm peril and whether or not Aviva has fairly declined a claim, but I’ll consider all of the relevant policy sections in turn. Falling branches Within the perils section of Mr M’s policy it says the cover will protect for loss or damage to the ‘buildings’ caused by being hit by falling trees or branches. This says below: “If we accept a claim for damage to the buildings caused by a falling tree or branch we’ll also pay reasonable costs to remove the fallen tree or part of the tree (this doesn’t include any part which remains below ground).” Buildings is defined in the policy and within this definition it includes the home, its walls and fences. So, it seems Mr M’s wall in this case would fall within this decision as it’s a brick wall. I note in the section “Buildings – what’s not covered?” it says: “Damage to fences, gates and hedges caused by storm, or by falling trees or branches” I mention this exclusion as I think its wording highlights that Aviva has chosen to exclude certain aspects of the home (a fence) from storm or tree damage but not brick boundary walls of the design Mr M has. I recognise that Mr M’s wall in places had wooden panels in place for increased privacy. And in line with the above, if I determine Aviva should cover this claim I wouldn’t expect it to cover the wooden fence panels that Mr M had in place. For these reasons, on its face, it appears to me that Mr M’s wall was impacted by a branch during a storm. And it doesn’t seem Aviva has denied or objected to a storm occurring, nor a branch falling. Within Aviva’s earlier responses it focused on the weather conditions that occurred at the time, and described that a wall should be able to withstand falling branches. So, it

-- 4 of 11 --

indicated the proximate cause of the wall’s collapse was not the weather conditions or the branch. Aviva has indicated that the onus has sat with Mr M to prove the insured peril has taken place. I think Mr M had clearly reported a branch had fallen (which is an insured peril) and provided photos to demonstrate damage had occurred. Aviva never asked Mr M to provide any particular evidence, for example specific photos of any of the damage or clarity on the branch in question. So, I’ve not been given anything to support Mr M having failed to comply or provide evidence to Aviva to allow it to consider the matter. In these circumstances I’m satisfied Mr M has reasonably evidenced an insured peril has taken place based on what was asked of him. And here, Aviva has sought to rely on terms related to the condition of the wall and Mr M’s maintenance of it. So, for Aviva to rely upon an exclusion or condition, the onus has shifted to Aviva to prove they have been applied fairly. In December 2025 Mr C, a structural engineer, provided his commentary to Mr M about the damage that occurred and his thoughts. Mr M has indicated that the evidence presented by Aviva’s technical team should not hold the same weight as Mr C’s as he is an independent engineer. And he’s raised concerns about Aviva not putting forward its agent’s details and qualifications. I understand that such steps may factor into a Court’s assessment of the evidence, but here as an informal alternative to the Court I won’t dismiss Aviva’s submissions. But I will place appropriate weight on Mr C’s input as an independent engineer. Aviva has seen Mr C’s comments, so in summary he said: • The wall wasn’t in a poor condition and hadn’t suffered significant wear and tear. He said the wall was constructed with lime mortar which was considerably weaker than cement mortar, but in his view the impact of a falling branch would’ve damaged a modern wall. • The photo of the standing wall indicated it was generally in an adequate position for its age, and he could see no evidence of mortar debonding. Ivy was growing up the wall but there was no evidence to show it’d grown into the wall. • From Mr M’s description – a three-metre-long branch fell from the tree from around 6 metres height. This had the potential energy of 800 joules. And he said the wall had withstood wind loads throughout its lifetime. But boundary walls built (at today’s standard) are not built to withstand the energy from a falling branch. Mr C’s commentary as an independent expert is persuasive in my view. I’m not an expert in this field myself, and we would take our lead from such experts. So, it seems to me that Mr M’s submission that the branch caused the loss is a plausible version of events and that the wall wasn’t in a poor condition for its age. Aviva has also given a response to Mr C’s comments, saying: • “The branch described in our experience does not look to be able to produce a collapse of this nature without preexisting structural weakness.

-- 5 of 11 --

• While the engineer calculates approximately 800 J of potential energy based solely on information provided by the customer, this value cannot be considered a verified or factual measurement. As no site visit was conducted, the engineer had no opportunity to confirm the branch’s actual dimensions, mass, density, or condition. Any energy calculation made without physical inspection is therefore an estimate based on unverified assumptions, and its reliability is limited. • The fence stands higher than the original wall. If a heavy branch had struck with significant force, the fence would exhibit clear impact characteristics such as fracture, splintering, breakage, or localised collapse. None of these are visible in any of the submitted photographs. The only observable fence distortion is separation and bowing consistent with long ‑term lateral pressure from wind loading and dense vegetation behind the panels, not a sudden impact event.” I recognise Aviva’s technical team does not believe the branch described could produce such a collapse. And they’ve qualified this by saying they’ve had no opportunity to confirm the exact details of the branch or inspect it as a site visit didn’t take place. I’m in agreement with Aviva that such a site visit would’ve allowed for an inspection of the branch, as well as a review of the existing condition of the wall. The challenge in this case, is that the opportunity to inspect the site passed Aviva by as it rejected the claim based on the limited photos it received from Mr M. While I think there is clearly very limited evidence for both Mr C and Aviva’s technical team to rely on here, and in turn limited evidence for me to go on, I think this is, simply, Aviva’s fault. Given the nature of the loss seemingly falls under two separate perils – I think Aviva’s decision to not investigate further when declining the claim was an unreasonable one in the circumstances. And in turn, it means the ability to provide any evidence retrospectively has been lost as the wall has since been removed and a fence erected in its place. So, while I agree with Aviva’s comment that the statements regarding the branch are speculative, it strikes me this situation of having to speculate based on limited evidence was caused by its own decision to not investigate further. And I don’t think it would be fair to dismiss Mr C’s comments simply because he didn’t visit the site at the time of the loss – given Aviva itself didn’t either. Mr C has put forward his qualified opinion on the matter, and as I’ve outlined above, I think that’s persuasive evidence. Aviva has commented on the fence panels and whether they most likely would’ve been damaged by the falling branch. But much like its own critique of Mr C’s comments, these are speculative based on the limited available evidence. So, I’m not satisfied this is enough to say the branch did not cause the loss in question. Aviva has also said the branch itself sits atop of the collapsed bricks. From the images I’ve reviewed, I’m not sure I agree and I think this is unclear from the photos. And again, such clarity could’ve been sought by either visiting the site or asking Mr M to provide specific evidence to demonstrate the loss at the time. A similar argument has taken place regarding the existing condition of the wall – and Aviva has put forward various arguments suggesting that the wall wasn’t maintained. Evidently this is in conflict with Mr C’s view. Aviva has pointed to G’s images, but it

-- 6 of 11 --

hasn’t provided these to this Service so I’m not certain about the particular images or concerns it has. But in any case, here I think this argument falls away, I’ll explain why. Aviva will be aware of its obligations under ICOBS to not unreasonably reject a claim. This is important as for Aviva to rely on any exclusions related to the existing condition of the wall, it needs to show a breach of a condition or exclusion was material to the loss. For instance, if the wall had been new and built to today’s standards and would’ve still collapsed under the weight of the branch, declining the claim would be unfair and against the relevant rules to not unreasonably reject a claim. Mr C has put forward that the branch in question would’ve caused damage to a modern wall. Aviva has given little to nothing in response to this point, other than to highlight it can’t inspect the branch in question (outlined above). With this in mind, it appears most likely to me, on balance, that such damage would most likely have occurred in any case. So, I’m not satisfied the condition of the wall is material to the outcome in this case. For completeness, I want to highlight that I’m not dismissing Aviva’s arguments in relation to the vegetation and mortar on the wall. I simply do not believe there is sufficient evidence based on the limited photos we have to go on, coupled with Mr C’s commentary to the contrary, to persuade me the collapse of the wall was due to the existing condition or the vegetation instead of the falling branch. I want to recognise that in this case I fully accept that had Aviva visited the site and obtained evidence at the time of the loss it is possible Aviva would’ve obtained sufficient evidence to decline or limit this claim. But I don’t think I can overlook that Aviva’s ability to fairly demonstrate that any of its exclusions should apply or conditions have been breached have been so greatly hindered by its own earlier inaction. For these reasons I’m currently minded to conclude that Mr M has evidenced an insured peril (the falling branch) has damaged his wall, and Aviva has insufficient evidence to rely upon any exclusions related to the condition of the wall. Storm A storm is defined in Mr M’s policy as: “An extreme weather event with persistent high winds with gusts normally exceeding 55mph (48 knots)…according to our weather data. We will also take other factors into consideration such as where the property is sited.” Aviva has seemingly considered all aspects of this claim under the storm peril from what I can see – including the damage caused by the branch. Aviva will be aware of the approach of this Service when considering claims of this nature. There are three main issues we consider: 1. Do we agree that storm conditions occurred on or around the date the damage is said to have happened? 2. Is the damage claimed for consistent with damage a storm typically causes? 3. Were the storm conditions the main cause of the damage?

-- 7 of 11 --

Do we agree that storm conditions occurred on or around the date the damage is said to have happened? In this case there was no dispute a storm occurred, which was named ‘Storm Darragh’. Using a recognised provider of weather reporting services (“W”), Aviva has said the storm winds amounted to 56mph. Using the Beaufort scale this is classed as a “storm”, and its specification is described as “…Seldom experienced inland; trees uprooted; considerable structural damage.” I’ve independently run this same report using the same provider and this gave the same result. This report does not state how far away the reading was taken from Mr M’s postcode. I’ve also run a weather report from an alternative provider (“E”) that this Service uses. E’s report says the highest wind reading was 67mph. I’ve arranged for a copy of this to be provided to both parties alongside this decision. On the Beaufort scale this speed is classed as a “Violent storm” and is described as “Very rarely experienced; accompanied by widespread damage.” This reading was taken 25 miles from Mr M’s postcode – in a location more inland. Given the variation, I think it’s sensible to take both of these reports into account. But without the data to support where W’s reading was taken from, it’s difficult for me to conclude this was in a more or less reliable location than E’s. Mr M has highlighted within his submissions that he lives in a valley and as a result the winds experienced would be greater. And from his testimony, he has been consistent that the winds were stronger than 56mph. Having looked at the location of his property on a map, I think this is a reasonable consideration to take into account when establishing the weather his property experienced – and this logic appears to echo the wording of Aviva’s policy. So overall, I’m satisfied the property did experience storm winds on the date the damage was reported to have occurred. And based on the available weather data and evidence submitted, on balance, I’m satisfied these were not on the lower end of the scale as has previously been put forward by Aviva and were most likely in the category of a violent storm. Is the damage claimed for consistent with damage a storm typically causes? Given my conclusions above regarding the level of wind speeds, I’m satisfied that the damage described and being claimed for (falling branches, and a collapsed wall) are in keeping with the damage a storm of this nature may cause. Were the storm conditions the main cause of the damage? Here I need to consider what was the proximate cause of the loss in question – was this the storm or did the poor weather simply highlight existing issues with the wall. Aviva’s initial assessment of the damage based on its weather report was that it wouldn’t expect a brick wall to collapse in storm winds of 56mph. On its face, I don’t think this is an unreasonable conclusion if the wind alone was the allegedly the sole cause of the collapse. But as I’ve outlined above, I’m persuaded the wind speeds were much greater than this. And most likely in the category of a violent storm. So, I think Aviva’s initial

-- 8 of 11 --

assessment wasn’t right as it ruled out the chances of the wind itself causing damage to the wall. So, even if I agreed with Aviva that the evidence supported the wall collapsed first, then the branch fell down afterwards – which I don’t – I can’t rule out with certainty that the wind itself wouldn’t have caused the wall to collapse. And this is a matter that hasn’t been explored to date as Aviva’s consideration was based on lower wind speeds. In line with my thinking in the fallen branch section above, I am satisfied that Mr M has demonstrated an insured peril took place in this section of the policy too. All parties agree a storm occurred, and there is damage to his buildings (his wall) as a result of the branch that broke in violent storm conditions. So, the onus sits with Aviva to evidence it has fairly applied its exclusion or breach of condition. And for the reasons I’ve given in the above section, I’m simply not satisfied it has provided sufficient evidence to do this under this storm peril either. Overall For all of the above reasons, I’m satisfied that Mr M evidenced multiple insured perils had occurred under his buildings insurance policy. And based on the limited evidence, I’m not persuaded that Aviva has fairly declined his claim. I’ve thought about the impact of Aviva’s decline of this claim. Mr M arranged for the disposal of the collapsed wall and the tree. It seems based on the policy wording that the removal of the fallen branch and debris would’ve been covered by the policy. So, I intend to direct Aviva to accept these losses as part of Mr M’s claim, and accept the losses Mr M actually incurred himself (subject to an invoice or receipt for works completed). Mr M has provided photos and an invoice for the replacement wooden fence he had erected following the loss. And he explained this was likely to be around 25% of the cost of a replacement brick wall which is why he took this step. I think it was a reasonable step for Mr M to want to secure the boundary of his property, but not necessarily to pay the significant cost of a new wall - so the fence was a reasonable option in the circumstances. So, Mr M’s replacement fence is also a cost that Aviva should pay for as this wouldn’t have been erected if the claim had been accepted earlier. And it follows that the removal of the fence should fall to Aviva too. Mr M has indicated a loose cost of around £1,000 for this – but I will leave this to Aviva in the first instance to determine whether it would carry out the works itself or choose to cash settle for this in line with the remaining policy terms. Mr M said he would like Aviva to pay him around £20,000 for the replacement brick wall. While I accept this value may be an accurate one, I’ve got little to support this (such as multiple quotes from builders). So, as above I intend to direct Aviva to accept the claim for the rebuild of the wall that had collapsed following the storm/impact of the branch in line with the remaining terms and conditions of the policy, once it has removed the fence. This means, for instance, if Aviva decided to cash settle the entire matter and there

-- 9 of 11 --

was a later dispute about the values of this, this matter may come back to this Service within a separate complaint (subject to our usual considerations). Mr M also instructed Mr C for a cost of £200. Mr C’s input to this matter has been crucial for its progress so I will direct Aviva to pay this cost too. Alongside all of these costs, I will direct Aviva to pay 8% simple interest per year on any payments from the date Mr M has incurred the respective costs up until the date of settlement. Mr M has also asked for suitable compensation for his time. Mr M is evidently a very well qualified individual who usually commands a sizeable hourly rate. But unless an individual can demonstrate the insurer complained about is responsible for them actually losing significant work – and not hypothetical losses to account for time – we simply wouldn’t calculate the impact in the way Mr M has requested. And we’d consider the inconvenience caused them as an individual in line with our published approach to compensation. I have thought about the distress and inconvenience Mr M has experienced. And in this case having read Mr M’s submissions I think it’s clear that he’s been very frustrated by this experience. Aviva’s decline of his claim has led to him having to go to lengths himself to arrange works and put forward his case and feel heard. In line with this Service’s approach to compensation, I’m minded to direct Aviva to pay him £500 in compensation for the avoidable distress and inconvenience it has caused him.” I gave both parties until 30 March 2026 to provide anything further. Mr M accepted the decision. He referenced two invoices he’d submitted for specific costs, saying the disposal works and wooden fence had cost £6,430, and the cost of commissioning Mr C had been £200. And he said he believed the deadline of 30 March 2026 should be adhered to given the time that had passed. Aviva responded shortly after to say it would provide further information by the deadline. Since, Mr M told us that Aviva had contacted him directly and said it would be sending a surveyor to assess the storm damage repairs. Mr M said he didn’t agree to this. Aviva hadn’t told this Service of any intention to carry out further investigations at Mr M’s property. And it contacted us shortly before the decision deadline and said it could not agree to anything at this time as Mr M had cancelled an inspection appointment. On the day of the deadline, 30 March 2026, Aviva told this Service it would like more time to provide submissions. Our Investigator asked for any details of these proposed submissions, but nothing has been received in time. So, the matter has been passed back to me for a final 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. In my provisional decision I outlined all of the main arguments and key evidence that is available in this case.

-- 10 of 11 --

Aviva initially said it would reply by the deadline, but has since said it would like more time to respond. This appears to be because it would like to inspect the fence/wall. Aviva has given me little in the way of detail to support its reasoning or the visit’s purpose. Given the history of the claim I don’t think it’d be fair to allow Aviva more time to do this, and I can understand why Mr M declined this visit with seemingly little detail given to him of its purpose. I say this as it has been around 16 months since the storm event happened and Aviva has chosen to never visit the property since this time. So, at this late stage it doesn’t feel appropriate to me to be granting Aviva more time and the opportunity to take steps it should’ve taken much earlier in the life of the claim. And in any case, Aviva has given me nothing to persuade me that any such visit at this late stage would be material to the outcome of the claim. Nor has it made any other comments for me to address. So, I am not granting Aviva any extension, and my final decision is in line with my provisional decision as I’ve been given nothing new to consider. My final decision For all of the above reasons, I’m upholding this complaint and direct Aviva Insurance Limited to do the following: • Pay Mr M £6,430. This is the cost of the disposal works (in relation to the fallen branch and collapsed brick wall) and replacement wooden fence. • Pay Mr M £200. This is the cost Mr M incurred in commissioning Mr C. • Pay Mr M 8% simple interest per year on the above payments from the date Mr M has incurred the respective costs up until the date of settlement. • Aviva should accept the claim for storm/fallen branch – and take forward the replacement of the collapsed brick wall in line with the remaining terms and conditions of the policy. Within any settlement or repair, Aviva will be responsible for the cost of removing the replacement wooden fence as directed above. • Pay Mr M £500 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience it has caused. HM Revenue and Customs may require that Aviva deduct tax from any interest paid. Should Mr M request this, Aviva should provide him with a statement of any interest deducted so that he may reclaim it from HMRC if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Jack Baldry Ombudsman

-- 11 of 11 --