AmTrust Specialty Limited · DRN-6257466

The complaint Miss C complains that a claim under her new home guarantee has been mishandled by AmTrust Specialty Limited (‘AmTrust’). She says AmTrust delayed the resolution of a problem with rainwater leaking into her home, and consequently, she’s suffered substantial distress, inconvenience, and unnecessary financial costs. References to AmTrust include its agents. What happened Miss C bought a newly built home in 2016. It came with a 10-year guarantee underwritten by AmTrust. A Director of the developer, Company L, is known personally to Miss C. In 2021 she noticed water ingress in her bedroom and reported this to Company L. After several months of dealing directly with Company L’s Director, and believing the problem may be storm related, she reported the issue to her home insurance provider. It declined her claim after a surveyor assessed that the problem was due to poor workmanship, not a storm. The source of the water ingress was a balcony (also part of Miss C’s property) located directly above, and forming a flat roof over, her bedroom. She logged her claim with AmTrust in December 2022, under the ‘Structural Insurance Period’. AmTrust asked Miss C to provide a report. A company closely associated with Company L provided this, and in April 2023 AmTrust told Miss C that Company L had agreed to do the works. Between April 2023 and February 2024 Company L made at least two attempts at repairs. On 7 February 2024 Miss C let AmTrust know that the remedial works had not been successful and she was once again experiencing rainwater dripping through into her bedroom. She said she’d contacted Company L but asked AmTrust, “Perhaps it needs some specialist intervention to diagnose the problem exactly?” AmTrust told her it was Company L’s responsibility to investigate and do the repairs. In March 2024 Company L told AmTrust it had carried out “extensive works” to the balcony and thought the problem was solved. I’ll call this ‘Repair 3’. On 4 April 2024 AmTrust told Miss C that once it had Company L’s report its “technical adviser” would review it “to confirm that the repairs are indeed sufficient”. A few days later, water ingress appeared in the bathroom (like the bedroom, this is immediately below the balcony). Miss C reported this to AmTrust and indicated she’d lost confidence in Company L. Company L was willing to continue trying to resolve the issue, and so its works went on. However, on 15 May 2024 Miss C let AmTrust know she’d like a specialist to be involved at the earliest opportunity. She explained she was awaiting surgery and said, “I cannot take the risk of this problem continuing. It needs to be eradicated.” AmTrust provided Miss C with details of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (‘RICS’). On 6 September 2024 Company L told AmTrust the problem had been rectified. I’ll call this ‘Repair 4’. A report from Company L was shared with Miss C by AmTrust on 18 September 2024 and the claim closed. The leaks returned in October 2024, and Miss C let AmTrust know. AmTrust told her, on or around 24 October 2024, that as Company L was cooperating it would continue to pursue it

-- 1 of 5 --

to do the works. Unhappy with this, Miss C made a complaint about AmTrust’s handling of the claim and the length of time things had been going on for. Whilst AmTrust was Investigating Miss C’s complaint, the situation continued to develop. I shall summarise the key events from this point: • October 2024 Miss C appointed a surveyor. • November 2024 Company L confirmed to AmTrust that the repairs had been completed (I’ll call this ‘Repair 5’). Miss C’s surveyor visited as she wasn’t confident in the repairs. A week or so later, the water ingress returned. • December 2024 Miss C appointed a solicitor – she’s explained she felt unable to deal with AmTrust on her own by this point. Meanwhile Company L let AmTrust know it would consider doing further repairs or paying Miss C directly to have them done. • January 2025 Miss C’s surveyor reported on his findings – the report concluded, “… the repair work is unsuccessful and a more thorough and robust repair/replacement of the balcony deck and weatherproofing details is now required, and piecemeal ad hoc repairs are not a viable way forward.” • February 2025 Miss C’s solicitor wrote to AmTrust detailing her concerns about the way the claim had been handled since 2022 and sharing the surveyor’s findings. AmTrust agreed to arrange a site visit by its building consultancy team. On 21 February 2025 AmTrust responded to Miss C’s complaint. It upheld it in part. It said it wasn’t responsible for the time the claim had been going on for, and it commented that Miss C had only recently expressed her concerns about Company L’s engagement. However, it said, “… in light of the number of unsuccessful remediation attempts completed by the developer, I feel the insurer should have provided further assistance to ensure the correct fix was administered.” It said it had arranged for the building consultancy team to visit as a “gesture of goodwill”. This visit took place on 25 February 2025. • March/April 2025 A ‘Building Consultancy Investigation Report’ was prepared. This concluded that there had been a breach of the technical manual – poor workmanship/materials in constructing the balcony. AmTrust told Miss C a flood/dye test would be completed. • May/June 2025 AmTrust’s building consultant visited again on 15 May 2025 and on 6 June 2025, AmTrust wrote to Miss C explaining that following the recent investigations it had decided to cash settle the claim. It said: “Despite extensive repair attempts by your developer, this water ingress has repeatedly reoccurred, and consequently we are at the point where a more extensive and permanent solution is required. We will therefore be proceeding to come to a cash settlement of your claim, without any further repair works being completed by your developer.” AmTrust asked Miss C to provide two quotes based on its building consultant’s recommendations. It accepted one of these in August 2025. Around the same time, Miss C’s solicitor wrote to AmTrust making, in effect, a second complaint and requesting the excess to be waived, reimbursement of Miss C’s surveyor and solicitor fees, and an amount for compensation. AmTrust refused this request, but it didn’t issue another final response letter. Miss C referred her complaint about the overall handling of the claim to this service. She’s explained that the whole experience has had a substantial impact on her wellbeing at a time in her life when she’s also had health problems to contend with.

-- 2 of 5 --

Our Investigator’s view Our Investigator thought Miss C’s complaint should be upheld. He said that whilst it was reasonable for AmTrust to allow the developer to assume liability for the defect and the repairs initially, it ought to have intervened in October 2024. He said had it arranged for a building consultant review at this time, it would likely have agreed to a cash settlement by no later than December 2024, six months earlier than it did. So, he considered AmTrust should pay Miss C £750 compensation to reflect the impact of that delay. However, he didn’t think AmTrust should pay Miss C’s surveyor or solicitor costs. AmTrust rejected the Investigator’s view. It said it wasn’t responsible for any delays and had acted promptly after receiving Miss C’s surveyor’s report, via her solicitor, in February 2025. It said this was evidence the issues had not been remediated by Company L. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint was passed to me to review afresh and decide. My provisional findings I issued a provisional decision on 18 March 2026 in which I explained that I agreed that Miss C’s complaint should be upheld, but that I’d come to a different conclusion about what should be done to remedy it. I said: “Miss C’s claim was made within the Structural Insurance Period of the guarantee, which in this case ran from November 2018 to November 2026. The policy included the following: “SECTION 3.3 STRUCTURAL INSURANCE The Underwriter will indemnify the Policyholder against all claims discovered and notified to the Underwriter during the Structural Insurance Period in respect of: 1) The cost of complete or partial rebuilding or rectifying work to the Housing Unit which has been affected by Major Damage provided always that the liability of the Underwriter does not exceed the reasonable cost of rebuilding each Housing Unit to its original specification; … 3) In the event of a claim under this Section the Underwriter has the option either of paying the cost of repairing, replacing or rectifying any damage resulting from items 1 to 2 above or itself arranging to have such damage corrected.” So, the policy would respond where ‘Major Damage’ was established. Such damage, as defined in the policy, included “physical damage” or “a condition requiring immediate remedial action to prevent actual destruction of or physical damage to any portion of the Housing Unit … caused by a defect in the design, workmanship, materials or components of: the Structure; or the waterproofing elements of the Waterproof Envelope ...” When Miss C first approached AmTrust in December 2022, her home insurer’s surveyor had already identified physical damage caused by poor workmanship, and the further report she provided in early 2023 confirmed that there were serious issues with the balcony to rectify. This report referred to “failure of the joint/bonding between the outlet gully and the [glass-reinforced plastic] resin” and “failure of the whole flat roof”. On that basis I think AmTrust could have accepted liability in April 2023 and arranged to have the damage corrected. I say this because, unlike under the preceding section

-- 3 of 5 --

of the policy, ‘Section 3.2 Defects Insurance’, which covered the first two years of the policy and ended in November 2018, AmTrust’s liability under Section 3.3 didn’t rest on the developer first refusing to respond to the claim or failing to carry out works or repairs. During the structural insurance period the responsibility for remedying defects no longer automatically lay with the developer in the first instance. That said, in the circumstances here, with Company L willing to attempt a repair and Miss C happy for Company L to do so, I don’t think it was unreasonable for AmTrust to give the developer the opportunity to remedy the problem – Section 3.3 did give AmTrust scope to determine how to respond to the claim. However, I provisionally find that AmTrust allowed Company L too many opportunities to get this right. Whilst they may have been willing, it should have been clear when ‘Repair 3’ failed that Company L were not identifying the source of the water ingress and were only extending for Miss C the distress, disruption, and inconvenience of living in a home that regularly leaked rainwater. It’s at this point, in April/May 2024 that I think AmTrust ought to have intervened and arranged a site visit by its building consultancy team. At this time AmTrust was, or ought to have been, aware that: a defect in workmanship or materials was the likely cause of the damage; Company L’s remediation attempts had been insufficient; Miss C (who had remained willing to allow Company L to try and resolve the problem for far longer than a consumer without a personal connection to the Director might have been expected to do) had lost confidence in Company L; and, significantly, Miss C was medically vulnerable – she’d let AmTrust know in May 2024 that she was awaiting significant surgery. AmTrust’s response at this stage was to provide Miss C with details of RICS so she could appoint her own surveyor. In my view, that response was inadequate and, AmTrust ought to have, as it later accepted in its final response letter, “provided further assistance to ensure the correct fix was administered”. Looking at how matters progressed after the building consultancy team became involved in February 2025, I consider that if AmTrust had arranged for a site visit by its building consultancy team in May 2024, the technical manual breach would have been confirmed by no later than June 2024, and the flood/dye testing completed before the end of July 2024. It follows that the decision to offer Miss C a cash settlement would more likely than not have been made before the end of August 2024. Acting as it did, I think AmTrust caused avoidable delays to the remediation of Miss C’s water ingress problem. Because it didn’t do more in April/May 2024, when I think it ought to have involved its building consultancy team, AmTrust left Miss C in a leaking home that was in an almost perpetual state of ‘being repaired’, and in an awkward position with the Director of Company L. The length of time she endured that situation was, in my view, extended by at least 10 months due to AmTrust’s inaction and could reasonably have been avoided. As well as causing Miss C substantial upset at an already difficult time for her (as I’ve said, she was medically vulnerable), this delay put Miss C in a position where she had to instruct a surveyor. I don’t think she ought to have had to do that. It was already evident that the problem had more likely than not been caused by poor workmanship/materials, and that Company L’s numerous attempts at repairs had not remediated it more than a year after the claim had been made. Overall, I provisionally find that AmTrust handled Miss C’s claim poorly. From the outset it exploited Miss C’s tolerance for Company L’s involvement, and when Miss C eventually lost confidence in Company L it continued to avoid liability by expecting her to go on accepting Company L as the solution. This was unfair and unreasonable and caused Miss C distress and inconvenience.

-- 4 of 5 --

To put things right, I intend to require that AmTrust should: • Pay Miss C £1,200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the claim and consequent delays. • Reimburse Miss C the cost she incurred in appointing a surveyor in October 2024, plus 8% simple interest from the date she paid the surveyor to the date this award is paid. For completeness, I note that Miss C has also asked that AmTrust reimburses at least part of her solicitor’s costs. Whilst I can appreciate the reasons Miss C felt she must appoint a solicitor by December 2024, I can’t agree that this was necessary to move the claim forwards. Ultimately it was Miss C’s decision to seek legal representation, and I don’t intend to make an award for the costs she incurred in doing so.” Miss C accepted my provisional decision and provided a copy of an invoice showing that her surveyor’s fee was £690 including VAT. AmTrust said it had no further comments to make. 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. As Miss C accepted my provisional decision and as AmTrust didn’t provide any comments in response to my provisional decision, I see no basis on which to change my provisional findings. I still think Miss C’s complaint should be upheld for all the reasons I set out in my provisional decision, reproduced above. And the complaint should be remedied as I proposed in that decision. Putting things right To put things right, AmTrust Specialty Limited must: • Pay Miss C £1,200 compensation. • Reimburse Miss C the £690 she paid her surveyor, plus 8% simple interest from the date she paid the surveyor to the date this award is paid. If AmTrust considers it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from any interest paid, it should tell Miss C how much it’s taken off. If requested, AmTrust should also provide Miss C with a certificate showing the amount deducted, so she can reclaim it from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. My final decision For the reasons set out above, and in my provisional decision, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I direct AmTrust Specialty Limited to pay the award set out in the ‘Putting things right’ section, above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss C to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Beth Wilcox Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --