Millennium Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6241054

The complaint Ms F is unhappy with how Millennium Insurance Company Limited (MICL) dealt with her claim under her home emergency insurance policy. What happened Ms F has a home emergency policy with MICL and in May 2025 she reported a leak. MICL say an engineer attended on two occasions and it was identified that the leak was coming from a hot water pipe beneath a tiled bathroom floor. They say Ms F was told that the necessary repairs would fall outside the scope of the policy. Ms F obtained a quote from a private plumber for the works and complained to MICL saying they should pay this. She also complained about the service she had received and lack of boiler services, which she said should have been provided through her policy. She wanted a refund of her call out charge and policy premium. MICL maintained that the works required were outside the scope of the policy and so the case came to us for an independent review. Our Investigator agreed with MICL. Ms F remained unhappy. Amongst her points in reply, she said the works should have been covered, that the service provided wasn’t good enough and outside of what was agreed. She also said she didn’t understand why we weren’t addressing the missed boiler services. As no agreement was reached, the case was passed to me to decide. I issued my provisional findings on 9 March 2026. An extract from which, forms part of my decision below. 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 don’t think MICL have done enough in declining the claim. Let me explain why. For ease, I will address each of the complaint points in turn. The claim for repairs Ms F’s policy provides cover for “repairs to the plumbing system on your home including: your hot and cold-water pipes between your internal stopcock up to but not including garden taps or the flexible pipes to your kitchen appliances”. I am satisfied that the repairs she claimed for are provided for under this section. MICL however, declined the claim on an exclusion for “making any improvements”. Where the policy says, “this policy is designed for repairs to your systems and therefore your insurance policy does not include any improvements or upgrades such as: replacing working radiators or swapping standard radiator valves”. I don’t believe MICL are acting fairly in declining the claim based on this. The works include capping the supply off and rerouting it above ground through new pipework. Whilst this avoids the need for excavating and was recommended by both the MICL

-- 1 of 3 --

and Ms F’s plumber, I have seen no evidence that it is an improvement for her system or should be considered an upgrade. It is an alternative. And I am more persuaded by Ms F’s argument that it is actually a downgrade for her and includes boxing she didn’t previously have on show. If MICL considered the re-routing as improvements not covered by the policy, they should have offered Ms F the second option their engineer offered. This was excavation and repair. However, they did not offer this to her. Citing a £1,000 limit for gaining access. Under this option MICL should have paid up to £1,000 to gain access to the leak (Ms F covering anything above this) and then MICL should have made the repair. This wasn’t correctly explained or offered to Ms F. Leading her to understandably carry out the work privately (she has provided an invoice of £1,125). In the circumstances, having unfairly declined the claim, MICL should reimburse Ms F this amount. The service provided Ms F has also complained about the service she received during the claims process. She has provided a timeline which shows missed appointments and being without hot water for a period of time. MICL have offered Ms F £75 compensation for these matters. However considering the impact of this and the unfairly declined claim, I think they should pay a total of £250 compensation. The boiler annual services Mrs F also complains about the handling of her annual boiler service appointments. Whilst Ms F has a contract of insurance with MICL, the policy documents show that her annual boiler service isn’t provided as a benefit of the contract of insurance and is a separate and independent contract between her and MICL. Such an agreement when standalone isn’t within the jurisdiction of this Service, so I can’t help with this aspect of her complaint further. In summary, MICL declined Ms F’s claim unfairly. This meant she had the repair work completed privately, which she has provided an invoice for. MICL should reimburse her for this and pay her £250 compensation for the impact. Ms F responded to accept my provisional decision. MICL responded in full and didn’t accept what I had set out. Amongst their points in reply, they said: • They acknowledged the option of excavation and a like-for-like repair could have been made clearer. • Maintained that the option of rerouting the pipe work “would represent a system alteration not covered by the policy”. • They had not received an itemised invoice showing that the costs for access hadn’t gone over the policy limit.

-- 2 of 3 --

• They were willing to offer to reimburse Ms F any access costs she paid (up to £1,000) as well as the compensation I had put forward. 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, my decision remains as I set out previously. I’ll explain why. I am not satisfied that MICL have shown that the repair works Ms F had carried out, should not be covered due to the exclusion for ‘making improvements’. Further, I am satisfied that Ms F was left with no option but to have the works carried out, because MICL had not clearly offered the option for an excavation and repair (without re-routing) which was covered under the policy. Because of this, Ms F has suffered a cost (she has detailed it as £1,125) which MICL should reimburse. MICL have provided no reason for me to alter my award of compensation and I maintain £250 fairly impacts the distress and inconvenience here. Putting things right • Reimburse Ms F for the repair works she has had carried out privately. • Pay Ms F £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience she has suffered. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I uphold this complaint and require Millennium Insurance Company Limited to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms F to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Yoni Smith Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --