Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6264411

The complaint Mr and Mrs S complain about how Aviva Insurance Limited have dealt with their buildings insurance claim. They want Aviva to cover the cost of repainting the woodwork in their kitchen and hall and their hall ceiling. What happened Mr and Mrs S have household building and contents with Aviva. Their policy includes cover for matching items in certain circumstances. In November 2024 they contacted Aviva to make a claim for accidental damage to the bespoke painted splashback in their kitchen. Aviva accepted the claim and instructed contractors to carry out the necessary work. There were difficulties sourcing an exact replacement for the splashback as the company who’d supplied it had gone out of business. But Mr and Mrs S agreed to a printed splashback being installed. Aviva accept that when the new splashback was being installed the plasterwork in the kitchen was damaged. And when this was being repaired there was plaster splatter to the kitchen walls and ceiling so these needed to be repainted. Mr and Mrs S’s kitchen is located in an extension to their property. Between the kitchen and the hall there’s an arch, rather than a door. Mr and Mrs S said that as the area is open plan Aviva should cover the cost of repainting the walls, woodwork and ceilings in their hall, stairway and landing, under the matching items clause in their policy, as it’s one continuous area. Mr and Mrs S are unhappy that they weren’t provided with a scope of works before work started. They say the scope of works was inadequate given the matching items clause in their policy. Aviva agreed to cover the cost of repainting the walls in the hallway. And said they’d cover repainting the walls of the stairway and landing if this was judged to be a continuous area. But they wouldn’t cover the cost of repainting any woodwork, as none in the kitchen had been repainted. And they wouldn’t cover the cost of repainting the hall ceiling as they said the arch formed a natural barrier between the kitchen and the hall. Mr and Mrs S accept that there is very little wood in the kitchen but say that if the scope of works was correct it would have included some skirting boards around and through the archway into the hall. Any they say this should have been repainted as they decorated the area as one, and so the woodwork in the hall should also be covered and repainted. Mr and Mrs S don’t accept that the arch forms a natural barrier between the kitchen and the hallway and say the ceilings now don’t match following the repainting of the kitchen ceiling. Mr and Mrs S raised a complaint and Aviva issued their final response on 23 April 2025. They acknowledged that there was damage to the plasterwork during the removal of the old splashback. And that the original repair was not up to standard. But they said the damage had been repaired and the affected areas painted.

-- 1 of 5 --

Regarding Mr and Mrs S’s concerns about the scope of the work they said the contractors had been asked to survey the hall walls for repainting and assess whether the stairs and landing are continuous from the hall. But it was only the walls that were being considered for repainting, not the ceilings or woodwork. Aviva maintained that the arch formed a natural break between the kitchen and the hall so the ceiling wasn’t being considered, and as no woodwork was painted in the kitchen, they wouldn’t be considering the woodwork in the hall. They agreed Mr and Mrs S had suffered trouble and upset regarding the repairs and offered them £200 compensation. Mr And Mrs S weren’t happy with Aviva’s response and complained to our service. Our investigator considered the case and didn’t think Aviva needed to take any further action. He said that the hallway ceiling was of a different texture to the ceiling in the kitchen, so he didn’t think these were matching items regardless of the dispute over whether the arch acts as a natural barrier. And he said Aviva hadn’t caused any damage to the kitchen ceiling so they had no obligation to apply the matching items cover to the hall ceiling. He also said woodwork would have to be present and damaged in the kitchen for Aviva to need to consider whether the matching items cover would apply to the woodwork in the hall, stairs and landing. He acknowledged that Mr and Mrs S had said they’d normally decorate woodwork and ceilings at the same time as the walls, but as he wasn’t persuaded that either had been damaged, he said the matching items clause in their policy didn’t apply to these areas. Finally he considered the compensation Aviva had offered Mr and Mrs S and said he thought this was reasonable, as although Aviva had made mistakes, he was satisfied they’d made a reasonable effort to rectify them by fixing the damage caused when the splashback was installed. Mr and Mrs S weren’t happy with our investigator’s opinion as they said it contained a material factual error, as their kitchen ceiling had been damaged. They said he’d introduced a new texture defence that Aviva hadn’t relied on. And he’d failed to consider whether the arch formed a “natural barrier” which was what Aviva had relied on in refusing to include the hall ceiling in their claim. The case then came to me for a decision. I issued my provisional decision on 4 March 2026. And in it I said: - I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Mr and Mrs S’s policy includes ‘Buildings matching items’ cover. The policy states: - “Buildings matching items If we have accepted a claim for loss or damage to a part of the buildings which is part of a matching group or set of items, and we can’t source a matching replacement, we will pay to replace the undamaged companion piece(s) where both of the following apply: • They are within the same room or open plan area as the damaged items or parts;

-- 2 of 5 --

and • The damaged item is part of a fixed sanitary suite, fitted furniture or floor or wall tiles. If we ask, you must give us any undamaged items which we have paid to have replaced. In all other circumstances we will not pay to replace undamaged part(s) of the matching group or set of items.” So I need to consider how this cover applies to their complaint and whether Aviva’s approach was correct. The walls and the ceiling in Mr and Mrs S’s kitchen needed repainting. The wall was damaged when the old splashback was removed and had to be replastered and then repainted. And the ceiling was damaged by plaster splatter when the wall was being replastered and also needed repainting. Aviva agreed to repaint the walls in the hall as this was part of an open plan area. And after their contractors had considered whether the stairs and landing were part of the same open plan area they agreed to these walls also being repainted. Mr and Mrs S want Aviva to cover repainting of the woodwork and ceiling in the hall under the same clause in their policy. I’m going to consider the repainting of the woodwork first. Mr and Mrs S accept that there isn’t much woodwork in their kitchen, but say there are skirting boards near the arch which extend into the hall. They argue that if the scope of works had been correct these should have been repainted and so the woodwork in the hall should also be covered. Aviva are dealing with a claim for “loss or damage.” The original claim was for replacement of the damaged splashback, but in replacing this further damage was caused to the kitchen walls and ceiling which then required replastering and repainting. I haven’t seen any evidence that the skirting boards were damaged. Mr and Mrs S have said that they would normally redo the area as a whole. That’s their choice, but I’m not persuaded the this means Aviva need to cover the cost of repainting woodwork which wasn’t damaged. And as there’s no woodwork in the kitchen that’s been repainted, or should be repainted, then Aviva don’t need to cover the cost of repainting the woodwork in the hall, stairs or landing. Although they accepted in relation to the walls that the hall was part of a continuous open plan area with the kitchen, in respect of the ceilings Aviva said the arch formed a “natural barrier” between the kitchen and the hall ceiling, so they weren’t prepared to cover the cost of repainting the hall ceiling. In the context of a buildings claim I’d regard a “natural barrier” as a feature which divides or separates two areas. Having considered the photographs of the kitchen and hall, while the arch may not entirely separate the two areas, I think it does separate the ceilings. So I agree with Aviva’s view that the arch forms a “natural barrier” between the kitchen and the hall in respect of the ceilings. I also have to consider whether Mr and Mrs S’s claim in relation to the hall ceiling is covered under the matching items clause in their policy, and I don’t think it is. The cover is provided in respect of matching items and looking at the finish of the ceilings these are quite different. The kitchen ceiling is flat and unpatterned, while the ceiling in the hall is textured. The two

-- 3 of 5 --

ceilings don’t match so I’m not persuaded that the “matching items” clause applies. So Aviva don’t need to cover the cost of repainting the hall ceiling. Aviva offered Mr and Mrs S £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience they’d experienced in relation to the repairs and how these had been completed. I’ve considered what happened and the steps Aviva took to put things right, and I think this sum is fair and reasonable, so I won’t be asking them to do any more. So my provisional decision was that I didn’t uphold Mr and Mrs S’s complaint. Aviva haven’t commented on my provisional decision. Mr and Mrs S maintain that I should uphold their complaint and say that Aviva should have included repainting the woodwork in their kitchen and hall and their hall ceiling. They say that their policy terms and conditions refer to matching items in the same room or open plan area. And as Aviva have accepted that their hallway, kitchen, stairs and landing form part of the same open plan area for the purposes of the walls, they don’t see how they can be treated as different when considering the ceiling. They say the concept of a “natural barrier” has been introduced as an interpretation, and doesn’t appear in their policy. They also say that our investigator introduced an argument of the ceilings not matching, because one is textured and the other is not, while Aviva didn’t rely on in declining the claim. They say that prior to the incident the ceilings formed part of a visually consistent decorative scheme because they were painted the same colour. And that the difference in texture did not prevent them from appearing as a continuous decorative area. And there is a visible colour mismatch as only the kitchen ceiling was repainted. In respect of the archway they say this functions as an opening within the same decorative area, rather than as a dividing decorative feature. And if it doesn’t divide the space for the purposes of the walls, they don’t understand how it can divide the same space for the purposes of the ceiling. They say that in practical decorating terms matching normally relates to overall visual appearance rather than identical construction materials. And as the purpose of buildings insurance is to place the policyholder back in the position they were in immediately before the loss, this hasn’t happened as there’s a visible decorative mismatch between the hallway and the kitchen ceilings which didn’t exist before. So they say I should review my decision having considered what the policy terms and conditions say. 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. Mr and Mrs S’s policy only covers matching items in an open plan area where damage has occurred. As there was no damage to the skirting boards in the kitchen there’s no cover under the policy for these to be repainted. So Aviva were correct in not agreeing to repaint these. And it follows that repainting the woodwork in the hall, stairs and landing isn’t covered. Mr and Mrs S have said they normally redecorate an area as a whole, but that doesn’t mean that Aviva have to cover areas where there’s been no damage.

-- 4 of 5 --

In considering the repainting of Mr and Mrs S’s hall ceiling I considered what both they and Aviva said and also the policy wording. It’s important to remember that the issue here is whether the repainting of the hall ceiling should be agreed under the buildings “matching items” cover. I’ve set out the policy wording in the background to this complaint. I’m considering this complaint in relation to “Buildings matching items” cover. Aviva didn’t agree to repaint Mr and Mrs S’s hall ceiling as they said the archway formed a “natural barrier” between the ceiling in the kitchen and the hall. Mr and Mrs say that the policy doesn’t use the term “natural barrier,” so Aviva can’t rely on this to decline this part of their claim. While Aviva have accepted that the kitchen and hall form part of an open plan area, I think there’s a difference between the walls and the ceilings. And I agree with Aviva that the arch does form a “natural barrier” between the kitchen and the hall. But even if I didn’t accept this the essence of the buildings matching items cover is that it applies to matching items. And as I’ve said the ceilings in Mr and Mrs S’s kitchen and hall don’t match. The kitchen ceiling is flat and the hall ceiling is textured, so regardless of the colour they’re painted they’re not “matching items.” Mr and Mrs S say that I can’t consider this as Aviva didn’t rely on this to decline their claim. But in considering this complaint I have to decide whether Aviva acted fairly and reasonably, and to do this based on all the evidence, including the terms and conditions of Mr and Mrs S’s policy. Mr and Mrs S say that the ceilings were part of a visually consistent decorative scheme as they were painted the same colour. I’m not persuaded that this means the ceilings in the kitchen and the hall matched. And as they didn’t match they’re not covered by the “matching items” cover, so I don’t think Aviva did anything wrong in not agreeing to cover the repainting of the hall ceiling. Mr and Mrs S have told us that Aviva didn’t share the schedule of works with them before work commenced. I agree that it would have been better had they done this. But in addition to repairing the damage Aviva have offered £200 compensation for the mistakes that were made. I think the compensation offered is appropriate, so I won’t be asking Aviva to do anything else. My final decision For the reasons set out above my final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr and Mrs S’s complaint about Aviva Insurance Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S and Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Patricia O'Leary Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --