Tesco Underwriting Limited · DRN-5934804

The complaint Ms M has complained that Tesco Underwriting Limited unfairly declined a claim under her home insurance policy for trace and access cover. What happened In July 2024 Ms M took out a home insurance policy with Tesco. Under the policy she had cover of £5,000 for trace and access costs. In May 2025 she was informed by her water company that there was a water leak at her property. She was told she needed to instruct someone urgently to find and repair the leak. Ms M appointed a local contractor to find the source of the leak. They made a hole in her hall floor and dug down to the pipe. They found the leak in a mains water pipe. They didn’t repair the pipe as they were unable to access it fully. Ms M was left with a hole in her hallway floor. Ms M made a claim to Tesco. She wanted it to pay for trace and access costs. Tesco instructed a loss adjuster to investigate the claim. They reported that Ms M had mentioned being told of signs of dampness dating back to 2023 which hadn’t been remedied. Tesco said the damage predated the policy. So it declined the claim. Ms M provided evidence from her water company that the leak had first been detected in Spring 2025. The water company said it had carried out a previous check of Ms M’s street in October 2024 when no leak had been found at her property. She said although signs of dampness had been noticed at an earlier date, they hadn’t been linked to a leak at that time. Tesco didn’t change its decision. Ms M referred her complaint to our service. Our Investigator upheld the complaint. He recommended that Tesco should provide trace and access cover in line up to the policy limit and pay £500 compensation to Ms M. As Tesco disagreed, the matter has been referred to me. 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. Trace and access insurance provides cover for finding the source of a leak and putting right any damage caused in doing so. Ms M’s policy provides trace and access cover but only if the escape of water is an insured “incident”. The term “incident” is defined in the policy as: “An event that results in a valid claim under this policy.” That means Ms M must be able to claim under the policy for damage caused by the same escape of water. In declining the claim Tesco relied upon an exclusion that said: “We will not pay claims arising directly or indirectly, caused or contributed to by any of the

-- 1 of 2 --

following: Loss or damage that happened before this policy cover started.” I agree that Tesco isn’t liable for damage that was present before the policy started. Tesco has accepted the evidence form Ms M’s water company that the leak started after she’d taken out the policy with it. I think it’s likely that the leak is causing some damage. I think that’s enough to mean that there is an “incident” as defined above although the damage caused by the leak may be small in relation to other pre-existing damage. For the avoidance of doubt this decision only relates to the dispute about trace and access cover. The question of what, if any, damage Tesco will be liable to repair is a separate matter. I think Tesco has caused Ms M some trouble and upset through its decision to decline her claim. She’s been left with a large hole in her hall floor for several months. The likelihood that the ongoing leak was probably causing unnecessary damage to her home was probably of great concern to her. Her water company was chasing her to have the leak repaired but she didn’t have the resources to do so. Ms M told us she was unable to work for several months due to the stress of the situation. I think compensation of £500 is appropriate in the circumstances to compensate her for that. Putting things right To put things right Tesco should provide trace and access cover up to the policy limit. It should also pay compensation of £500 to Ms M. My final decision I uphold this complaint and require Tesco Underwriting Limited to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms M to accept or reject my decision before 13 April 2026. Elizabeth Grant Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --