Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited · DRN-5928474

The complaint Mr and Mrs C are unhappy with the handling of their claim by Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited (“LV”) following water ingress and a claim that was made under their home insurance policy. What happened Mr and Mrs C made a claim when they identified water leaking through their extension roof and into their kitchen. The claim was made in September 2024 and followed on from reporting a similar issue the previous year. Mr and Mrs C were frustrated and distressed by a claims journey that lasted 18 months before they accepted LV’s view that the water ingress was caused by poor workmanship. However, for the 18 months they felt like they were passed back and forth between LV’s home insurance team and home emergency team. Mr and Mrs C complained that they were not communicated to clearly which led to a stressful claims journey. For a long time, they said they didn’t know how to get their issues resolved and didn’t know what was causing it. Mr and Mrs C say they’ve spent a lot of wasted time chasing up LV to try and progress the claim and they want the costs reimbursed of the investigation works they’ve had carried out by their builder. They are also unhappy when they were repeatedly and incorrectly informed their premiums had increased. LV said the compensation offered (£180) was proportionate compensation for the claims journey experienced, and it reinforced its position that the LV policy wouldn’t cover the claim under the home insurance policy. Our investigator decided to partially uphold the complaint. He thought there were issues with communication and classification of the claim which meant it wasn’t an efficient claims journey. He raised the compensation by £70, to £250 in total for the distress and inconvenience experienced. Mr and Mrs C disagreed, so the case has been referred to an ombudsman. 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. When making a claim, the onus is on the policyholder, Mr and Mrs C to provide evidence that they have a valid claim under the policy. Mr and Mrs C must show that an insured peril listed in the policy has caused the damage. I appreciate there has been a back-and-forth nature to this claim. However, from examining what’s happened, I haven’t seen that evidence has been provided to show a one-off insured event caused the damage. Initially LV had said wear and tear had caused the damage. I can also see it has ruled out subsidence as a cause. A blocked gutter also added to the problems. However, LV finally

-- 1 of 2 --

concluded poor workmanship was the cause of damage, inadequate lead flashings installed on the roof. This is a finding that Mr and Mrs C agree with. The policy only covers damage caused by water entering the home from either storm or flood. As the damage was caused by poor workmanship, I think LV have been reasonable to decline the claim as it wasn’t covered by the policy. I can see LV did consider a wide range of causes for the damage, but each time it did, I can see it did inform Mr and Mrs C that the claim was unsuccessful. I can also see there was a back-and-forth nature to this claim between the home claims cover and emergency cover. However, I’m also aware that Mr and Mrs C had a complaint escalated to our service which wasn’t upheld related to similar damage on their property around 12 months earlier. In that decision, it was made clear to Mr and Mrs C that the emergency cover on the policy only provided a temporary repair to the issue found. I think at this point it was clear Mr and Mrs C needed to make a long-lasting repair to their property. I think LV have looked at all options of covering the claim and they have informed Mr and Mrs C why the claim shouldn’t be covered. I appreciate further damage may have been caused to the property as repairs weren’t made to the roof. However, I don’t think this is the responsibility of LV. Mr and Mrs C could’ve made long lasting repairs to their home 12 months earlier. LV did inform Mr and Mrs C on several occasions that their premiums would be increasing by £300 due to the claim, even after LV had been contacted by Mr and Mrs C and it was acknowledged this was a mistake. I think this would’ve caused some slight frustration and inconvenience for Mr and Mrs C. I also think, LV could’ve made it clearer to Mr and Mrs C earlier that it wasn’t responsible for the repairs, so I’m increasing the compensation by £70 to £250 in total for the ongoing nature of this claim. But ultimately, LV weren’t responsible for making the repair or for repairing the damage when making this claim. Mr and Mrs C were aware of the issue before this claim was made, so I don’t the actions by LV have made the damage worse. I think if long lasting repairs were made by Mr and Mrs C, when the issue was first discovered, there wouldn’t have been further damage. My final decision My final decision is that I partially uphold this complaint. I require Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited to pay Mr and Mrs C: • £70 compensation – for distress and inconvenience (LV should also pay the £180 compensation it offered, if it hasn’t already). Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs C and Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Pete Averill Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --