U K Insurance Limited · DRN-6020051

The complaint Ms J and Mr M have complained about the handling of their escape of water claim by U K Insurance Limited (“UKI”). What happened Ms J and Mr M’s home was damaged following a sewage waste leak, which caused significant damp and numerous other issues such as black mould. They made a claim to UKI and the claim was accepted. Alternative accommodation had to be sought for the family. Ms J and Mr M made a complaint as they didn’t feel UKI had progressed the claim fairly, or met their family’s needs in terms of the accommodation it had sourced. A previous complaint was referred to this service, and our Investigator considered it. She said UKI’s offer of £1,000 compensation for the period of time up to January 2025 (when UKI sent its first final response letter) was too low considering the impact its actions had had on the family. So she asked UKI to increase the compensation payable for the distress experienced during that time. For that period, it was agreed that UKI would pay Ms J and Mr M £1,500 compensation for distress and inconvenience. A second complaint was then made and UKI responded to this in June 2025. Our Investigator considered that complaint and thought the £500 compensation UKI had offered for it was fair and reasonable. Ms J and Mr M didn’t agree. They said the Investigator had appeared to view the second complaint in isolation when many of the same issues in the first complaint were still present, such as the cumulative stress, repeated delays and other errors that were made. So the second complaint has now been referred to me for an Ombudsman’s 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. As this is an informal service, I’m not going to respond here to every point raised or comment on every piece of evidence Ms J, Mr M and UKI have provided. Instead, I’ve focused on those I consider to be key or central to the issues in dispute. But I would like to reassure both parties that I have considered everything submitted. And having done so, whilst I have a great deal of empathy for Ms J and Mr M, I’m afraid I’m not upholding this complaint. I’ll explain why. The insurance industry regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), has set out rules and guidance about how insurers should handle claims. These are contained in the ‘Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook’ (ICOBS). ICOBS 8.1 says an insurer must handle claims promptly and fairly; provide reasonable guidance to help a policyholder make

-- 1 of 3 --

a claim and give appropriate information on its progress. I’ve kept this in mind while considering this complaint together with what I consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. I’ve looked closely at the issues that were apparent during the period of time I can consider in this complaint (from when the initial final response letter was issued on 24 January 2025 until the second final response was issued on 30 June 2025). And I’m satisfied that for the problems the family experienced during this time, UKI’s offer of £500 compensation is fair and reasonable, for the following reasons: • Whilst I am obligated to look at this complaint in isolation, I appreciate Ms J and Mr M’s comments that the issues were cumulative and continuing throughout the claim. That being said, UKI has paid or offered a total of £2,250 over the three complaints so I’ve also had to bear this in mind. And I think that this level of compensation reflects the severity of the issues that were experienced by the family. I am also mindful that there is a third complaint which I am not considering in this decision, and which will be considered separately. • The educational impact on Ms J and Mr M’s children is something I’ve carefully considered, but it would be extremely difficult to separate the impact of the claim itself on the children’s comfort and ability to study due to the damage to the home, from the impact of UKI’s actions. Every claim of this nature will come with some level of disruption to normal family life, and these claims will always result in a great deal of inconvenience. So whilst I do think there was considerable impact as a result of UKI’s actions, I think the compensation offered is in line with what I’d expect for this. • UKI could not have reasonably foreseen some of the issues that became apparent once the family moved into certain properties, for example the thin walls and noises that could be heard. • I’ve considered what Ms J and Mr M have said following the receipt of UKI’s SAR disclosure. They have obtained information which suggests UKI was applying a more restrictive internal approach to alternative accommodation than originally thought. For example, records reveal notes which said alternative accommodation wasn’t needed due to the damage to the house, but due to health conditions. However, these internal records do not change the impact of the situation on Ms J and Mr M or their family during the time period I can consider – they simply provide additional context regarding the errors that were made. So I’m not persuaded that this would justify an increase in compensation. • I’ve considered all the issues which I am satisfied will have significantly impacted the family. These include (but are not limited to) Ms J and Mr M having to continually chase for updates, health issues, problems with accommodation and environmental conditions, and delays, among other things. For the impact of all of these issues, I’m satisfied £500 compensation is fair and reasonable. • I have disregarded UKI’s implications from its internal notes that suggest Ms J and Mr M were requesting unsuitably large properties and I have accepted instead what Ms J and Mr M have said about their reasonable needs for a 3-4 bedroom home and how this may have been misconstrued internally. • Had no offer been made in this case, I would’ve awarded around the same amount as UKI has offered. This is because our compensation guidelines, which Ms J and Mr M can view on our website, say that an award in this range might be fair where the impact is considerable distress, and significant disruption and inconvenience,

-- 2 of 3 --

which requires a lot of extra effort to sort out. Typically, this award is for issues that span over many weeks or months. So having carefully considered everything Ms J and Mr M have said, I still think it’s a reasonable offer in this case. 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 J and Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Ifrah Malik Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --