Accelerant Insurance UK Limited · DRN-5960238

The complaint Ms B and Mr C have complained about Accelerant Insurance UK Limited. They feel it hasn’t treated them fairly after they made a claim on their building warranty policy. Although the claims and settlement were made by Accelerant’s agents, I will refer to Accelerant throughout this decision as it was ultimately responsible for the claim. What happened Ms B and Mr C faced a number of ongoing issues after they bought a new-build property that was covered by a ten-year warranty policy through Accelerant. They reported a number of issues with their new property to their property developer and proceeded to court where they were awarded costs and damages. However, unfortunately, the developer went into liquidation, and so Ms B and Mr C advanced their difficulties with Accelerant under their building warranty. Accelerant investigated but declined the claim as it said the issues weren’t covered by the building warranty. It explained that the pergola they wished to claim for wasn’t covered by the policy as it wasn’t on the plans that were agreed as part of cover and it was separate to the main residence; that issues in relation to the garage flat roof weren’t covered as it was over the 10 square metres allowed under the policy; and because the garage was partly built into a pre-existing stone boundary wall, and the garage/gym differed from the plans submitted at the time of quotation and any additional works were not covered under the scope of the policy. But Ms B and Mr C didn’t agree so they complained to this Service. Our Investigator looked into things for Ms B and Mr C, but he didn’t uphold their complaint. Although he sympathised with the position they found themselves in after significant problems with their new build home and the developer’s insolvency he didn’t think Accelerant had done anything wrong in turning down the claim for the reasons outlined. As Ms B and Mr C didn’t agree the matter has been passed to me for review. 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. I think it’s important to explain I’ve read and taken into account all of the information provided by both parties, in reaching my decision. If I’ve not reflected something that’s been said in this decision it’s not because I didn’t see it, it’s because I didn’t deem it relevant to the crux of the complaint. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party, but merely to reflect my informal role in deciding what a fair and reasonable outcome is. This also means I don’t think it’s necessary to get an answer, or provide my own answer, to every question raised unless it’s relevant to the crux of the complaint. Although I can understand Ms B and Mrs C’s position given the various significant problems they had with their newly built property which evolved over a period of time, especially as they were successful at court only for the developer to go into liquidation. But I have to be fair to both sides when I consider complaints and I don’t think Accelerant has acted unfairly in declining the claim as the policy doesn’t provide cover.

-- 1 of 2 --

Insurance policies don’t provide cover for every eventuality, and I know Ms B and Mr C feel that the damage to their pergola should be covered but I agree that the policy is clear that there isn’t any cover in place. I say this as the pergola wasn’t included in the original plans and additional cover hadn’t been requested by the developer, who took out the policy, as part of the warranty so I can’t expect Accelerant to provide cover here. And it’s clear that the pergola isn’t part of the main residence and would not be considered part of the stability of the property, so it clearly wasn’t covered by the warranty, and I can’t ask Accelerant to step outside the policy here. Similarly, I think it is clear that the garage/gym roof damage isn’t covered. I say this as the policy makes it clear that only ‘Flat roof coverings no more than 10 square meters each unless specifically included with the Certificate of Insurance’ are covered. And as the roof, which was around 35 square metres, wasn’t specified under the insurance certificate as included under the policy it is clear Ms B and Mr C’s flat roof wasn’t covered. Again, I have every sympathy with Ms B and Mr C given the various difficulties they have faced with the roof, but I can’t ask Accelerant to step outside of the policy when it is clear that flat roofs the size of Ms B and Mr C’s and any associated issues are excluded from cover. Plus, although Accelerant accepted that there is major damage caused to the gym/garage wall it has also declined this additional damp/water ingress damage. This is partly because the wall was built into the original stone retaining wall and so it has outlined that this doesn’t fall for consideration under the policy as the wall was pre-existing to the plans provided and agreed. Furthermore, Accelerant highlight that the original plans didn’t include the gym/garage as was built and didn’t include a habitable room - which would have different building requirements. As such, it has relied on the endorsement on the final certificate that says ‘Any additional building works that were not included in the original plans presented at the time of quotation will be excluded from this policy, this includes extensions, garages and outbuildings’ and I think this is clear. I understand that Ms B and Mr C have questioned why the gym/garage is referred to as such in recent times, but I’ve seen sufficient information through pictures and reports, including their own, to see why it is referred to as such which wasn’t outlined on the original plans. And it’s clear that their property was presented as a show home, so additions were clearly made that weren’t on the original plans and I can’t hold Accelerant responsible for this. Finally, I note that Ms B and Mr C have raised a few additional points that haven’t been addressed by Accelerant in its final response and it would have to be allowed the opportunity to consider these in the first instance. So, I will simply leave them to advance this now if they wish directly with Accellerent in the first instance. And, as our Investigator explained, I can’t comment on the inspection and sale of the policy as this was taken out by the developer and it would be a matter for them to advance. Given all of this, and despite my sympathy for the position Ms B and Mr C have found themselves especially given the insolvency of the developer, I don’t think Accelerant has done anything wrong here. I say this as I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to say the issues outlined above are covered by the policy and I can’t ask Accelerant to extend cover for items that were not presented as part of the policy at the time it was issued. My final decision It follows, for the reasons given above, that I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms B and Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Colin Keegan Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --