Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-5954026

The complaint The estate of the late Mrs D (“the estate”) complained that Aviva Insurance Limited (“Aviva”) handled a claim poorly following damage caused to a boundary wall, under its home buildings insurance policy. The estate is represented by its executors. I’ll refer to the estate for ease. What happened On 9 December 2024 neighbours to the estate’s property alerted the executors that a wall that formed the boundary at the front of the house had been damaged by a vehicle. The estate arranged for quotes to be obtained for the repairs. A claim was then submitted to Aviva on 19 December. The estate described inconsistent communication about the information Aviva required. It said the property was in the process of being sold. Due to delays in settling the claim the estate said this contributed to a buyer pulling out. The executors said this caused extreme stress and additional costs in continuing visits to the property. The estate said that the policy excess was confirmed to be £250. This was later doubled to £500. It said Aviva based its settlement on the lowest quote the provided. This was £565, which left a settlement payment of only £65. The executors requested compensation for the issues experienced. They said this was declined as Aviva said the policy was for the benefit of the estate. The executors said they had been misled when setting up the policy which meant that no compensation could be paid to them. The estate complained to Aviva on 2 January 2025. In its final complaint response dated 27 January the business said that on occasion the information its agents gave was contradictory. It apologised for the confusion this had caused. The estate didn’t think it had been treated fairly by Aviva and referred the matter to our service. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. He said there were service failings in Aviva’s handling of the claim. But he thought the business had assessed the claim correctly in terms of the policy excess and the settlement. As the policy was held by the estate, he said this meant an award for distress and inconvenience wasn’t appropriate. This was because the estate could not experience distress or inconvenience. The estate didn’t accept our investigator’s findings and asked for an ombudsman to consider its complaint. It 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

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so I’m not upholding this complaint. Let me explain. Insurers must validate all claims. This is to ensure the loss claimed is covered by an insured cause and doesn’t fall under a policy exclusion. Additionally, where a policyholder is to receive a settlement, the insurer must ensure the costs claimed have been evidenced. That said we still expect Aviva to handle claims effectively and not to cause avoidable delays. I’ve focused on this here. From the records I can see that the estate provided two quotes via a messaging app for repairs to the damaged wall. This was shortly after the claim was first registered on 19 December 2024. Aviva acknowledged that no contact was then made for around four days because of a typo when its agent recorded the executor’s email address. I’ve listened to the call from 23 December 2024. The mistake with the email address was identified during this call. The call handler said that screenshots of any quotes provided via the messaging app should include contact details for the contractors. This would allow the business to make contact to check the details of the work proposed. During this call the executor for the estate discussed a settlement for the claim. The call handler said this was possible. The executor explained this would allow a payment to be provided to the buyer for the property. They could then arrange the repairs as they saw fit. During this call the call handler confirmed the policy excess was £250. This was a mistake. The policy schedule shows this was actually the higher amount of £500. This is made up of a £250 excess relating to the building’s insurance claim. As well as an endorsement for unoccupied properties. This meant a further £250 policy excess was payable. I’ve listened to another call between the executor and Aviva’s call handler on 6 January 2025. The correct policy excess was confirmed on this call. It was also explained that the business was basing the claim settlement on the lower of the quotes provided. After the policy excess was deducted this left a payment of £65. The call handler referred to the claim “effectively” falling within the excess. The executor raised a concern about this point as the repair costs were still higher than the policy excess. I don’t disagree with this. But I think what the call handler highlighted was that any settlement was largely swallowed up by the excess fee. The executor made her complaint on 2 January 2025. She raised concerns that quotes on letter headed paper were now required when this contradicted Aviva’s previous instructions. The executor was concerned that this would prove difficult to obtain prior to the sale of the property. This does appear to contradict the information provided during the calls I listened to. I acknowledge the executor’s comments that this caused some distress given the sale that was underway. I note her comments that the buyer withdrew from the sale in mid- January even though a £500 reduction had been offered for the damaged wall. The estate explained that the buyer wanted a reduction of £15,000. This wasn’t agreed so the property had to be re-advertised. I’m sorry to hear that the sale didn’t proceed as expected. But I don’t think this can reasonably be attributed to failings on Aviva’s part. There was a relatively short period from the wall being damaged to the buyer pulling out of the sale. From what I’ve read I don’t think it was likely that the damage would have been repaired prior to this. This meant that the estate had to offer a reduction in the sale price to account for the repairs that were needed. The executors offered £500 which was supported by a recent quote. But the buyers were only willing to accept a £15,000 reduction. This seems unrealistic. I don’t think Aviva could reasonably have done anything differently to have prevented the buyer pulling out of the sale

-- 2 of 3 --

when they did. The timing of the damage was unfortunate as this happened around the time the property was being sold. It’s clear that mistakes were made by Aviva and the communication around the quote information could have been clearer. So, I think it was fair that the business upheld this aspect of the complaint. I’ve thought about the executor’s request that Aviva should provide compensation for the distress and inconvenience they experienced. I’m sorry to hear of the distress this caused them. But the policy is for the benefit of the estate of the late Mrs D. The estate is a legal entity and so it can’t experience distress or inconvenience in the way that a person can. This means I can’t consider an award for compensation. My intention isn’t to diminish the frustration and upset the executors described. But for the reasons I’ve set out, I can’t fairly ask Aviva to pay compensation in these circumstances. In summary I don’t think Aviva assessed the claim unfairly based on the quotes provided and when applying the policy excesses it did. Communication could have been better, and it made a mistake when recording the executor’s email, which delayed receipt of a follow up email. So, I think it’s fair that Aviva upheld this part of the complaint. But as the policy is for the benefit of the estate, I can’t fairly ask the business 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 Ms C and Ms D and the estate of Mrs D to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --