Domestic & General Insurance Plc · DRN-6233893

The complaint Mr F complains about the way Domestic & General Insurance Plc (‘D&G’) handled a claim he made on a home appliance insurance policy. What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them here. Instead, I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my 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. Having done so, I’ve reached the same overall conclusion as the Investigator, and I uphold this complaint. Mr F contacted D&G in July 2025 to raise a claim for a fault with the washing machine in Flat D. D&G arranged for an engineer to attend and their records show a repair was completed on 7 August 2025. However, Mr F later said the repair wasn't carried out to the washing machine in Flat D and raised a complaint. He said he owns multiple flats in the same building and believes the engineer attended the wrong property and fixed the machine in Flat B instead. He provided evidence from his managing agent and tenant to support this. D&G said their records showed the correct process was followed, including the engineer’s attendance, parts being ordered, and the repair being completed. They referred to system notes confirming the engineer attended the site and say Mr F’s managing agent may have been confused about what happened during site visits. They said it was unreasonable to conclude that a repair agent would attend one property and use pre-ordered parts intended for a different appliance in another property. And they said it wouldn’t have taken the tenant of Flat D to take over three months to report that the machine was not repaired, especially considering the nature of the fault reported. I've considered the relevant evidence here including D&G’s own system notes and the testimony provided by Mr F. In situations like this, where the evidence may be incomplete or contradictory, I’m required to make my decision on the balance of probabilities, given the evidence which is available and the wider circumstances of the complaint, as well as how much weight to give to any piece of evidence. Additionally, Under DISP 3.6.1, my remit is to determine a complaint by reference to what is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. While I accept that D&G's records indicate the repair was logged as completed, I don't think those records are enough on their own to demonstrate that the appliance at Flat D was actually repaired. In particular, I've taken into account the evidence from the managing agent that says the engineer collected keys for a different flat, and the tenant’s account that the appliance at Flat D remained faulty.

-- 1 of 3 --

D&G has set out that they feel there were inconsistencies in the dates recalled by the managing agent, and that there was a separate fault with the machine in Flat B being fixed by a different engineer. I’ve carefully considered those points, but I don’t think any discrepancies in the managing agent’s testimony alone are enough to undermine the overall account being given, especially as the events were recalled sometime later. As the complaint currently stands, the available evidence shows the managing agent said wrong keys were provided, and the evidence from the tenant was at the appliance of Flat D remained faulty. So, taking everything into account, I find that it's more likely than not the repair was not completed properly at Flat D. And I'm therefore not persuaded that D&G fulfilled their obligations under the policy. Additionally, I should highlight that even if a repair was carried out at Flat D as D&G said it was, I would still uphold the complaint. This is because D&G were required to carry out a lasting and effective repair. So, even if the machine in Flat D was repaired, if the same issue has persisted then it’s likely a repair wasn’t properly completed. I’ve taken D&G’s comments on board about the likelihood of the issue not being reported for several months. But I understand this is because the tenant reported that the machine’s drying function wasn’t working, and this wasn’t being used in the summer months. So, if the drying function is still not working correctly, then D&G haven’t fixed the issue in any event. Additionally, even though the policy was later cancelled, because the repair either hadn’t been completed properly or at all at that point, I don't think it would be fair or reasonable for D&G to rely on the cancellation to avoid putting things right. Putting things right In light of what I have said above, I think the fair and reasonable way to resolve this complaint is for D&G to arrange an inspection of the machine in Flat D. If the repair hasn’t been completed or the same issue originally reported still persists, D&G should arrange for the necessary repairs to be completed. Finally, I’ve considered whether D&G’s actions caused distress or inconvenience that would warrant an award of compensation. While I find that a repair to the machine in Flat D was not completed properly, I need to think about the impact this caused. In relation to Mr F’s tenant, while I recognise that they would have experienced a level of inconvenience, this Service’s rules do not allow me to make an award to them directly, as they are not a named policyholder under the insurance policy with D&G. In respect of the policyholder, Mr F, I accept this situation would have been frustrating; but I haven’t seen any evidence that persuades me this led to a significant level of disruption beyond the need to raise the issue and have it addressed. And ultimately, given the issue appears to have arisen from a genuine mistake rather than a broader service failure, I do not consider that I would be fair or reasonable for me in this particular complaint for to make an award of compensation for distress and inconvenience. My final decision For the reasons I have given, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I direct Domestic & General Insurance Plc to resolve the complaint in the way I have outlined in the “Putting things right” section above.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Stephen Howard Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --