UK Insurance Limited · DRN-6016135

The complaint Mr B complains U K Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line Home Insurance hasn’t settled a claim against his home insurance policy fairly. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them here. Instead, I will focus on the reasons for my 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. Mr B had a home insurance policy with UKI. In 2018 he made a claim against the policy for subsidence damage. UKI accepted the claim. In 2025 the home was declared stable and repairs were discussed/agreed. The crux of this complaint is a disagreement over repairs to the kitchen; namely floor levelling/kitchen replacement. Mr B says UKI agreed to remove his kitchen units to level and re-tile the floor and then unfairly removed this from the scope of works. UKI says the kitchen floor is severely distorted and this is the result of a mixture of poor ground conditions, settlement and subsidence. It doesn’t argue settlement is excluded. Instead, it argues the distortion happened before policy inception (which was in 2011), and it’s not responsible for paying to put right damage caused pre-policy inception. I understand the property was built in 1989, a substantial extension was added in 2005, and the kitchen is in the extension. UKI’s 2019 report says: “The Policyholder advised that within the first couple of years after construction it was noted there were cracks in the extension building. These were then advised as normal settlement and following cosmetic repairs all was then well until the Summer of 2018.” This suggests there was some movement/damage pre-2011, but this was repaired and matters were stable until 2018. The site investigation report from 2019 said the following regarding the kitchen floor: “The floor had ceramic tiles and toward the rear right of the room was tapered separation to 15mm between the floor finish and the right side skirting board, this petering out towards the middle of the room. Measurements with a spirit level confirmed the floor sloped to the left by 11mm at the front and 14mm at the rear.”

-- 1 of 3 --

There is a contemporaneous note of a call UKI had with Mr B in 2020 in which he said the damage was much worse than it was and the kitchen units had started to drop. There is another contemporaneous note from 2023 which says: “Initially damage was contained to the kitchen, bathroom, and front and rear elevations. This then developed as damage became apparent to the hallway, front bedroom, side elevation and kitchen floor.” In 2025, UKI said the floor slab in the kitchen had dropped by approximately 35mm. A photograph shows this to be the case. Comments from the report commissioned by Mr B support the same. So UKI’s measurements between 2019 and 2025 show a significant drop in the kitchen floor, as observed by Mr B and UKI. This doesn’t suggest the distortion to the kitchen floor happened wholly or predominantly before policy inception. UKI argues the recent movement in the kitchen must be minor given there is no evidence of significant gaps where the worktops meet the tiled walls and it can therefore be deduced the bulk of the distortion to the floor slab is likely to have occurred shortly after the extension and before policy inception. But the evidence I’ve referred to doesn’t support that position. And while I don’t know when the kitchen was installed, it looks aged. It seems to me to link the gap with the floor drop would mean the floor would have needed to have dropped before the kitchen was installed. I find that unlikely. Overall, I’m not satisfied UKI has shown the distortion to the kitchen floor happened wholly or predominantly before policy inception. So I don’t find it was fair and reasonable for UKI to decline to remove Mr B’s kitchen units to level and re-tile the floor I also find UKI has been unfair in its approach to this matter. It seems to have been generally accepted the kitchen units would need to be removed so the floor could be levelled and re- tiled. Mr B’s testimony, UKI’s notes and the scope of works produced in April 2025, reflect this. UKI’s decision to depart from this introduced uncertainty and frustration for Mr B, and caused a further delay on an already very lengthy claim. UKI has recognised its customer service could have been better. It apologised to Mr B and offered him £600 compensation. The Investigator recommended UKI increase this to £1,000. Having considered the overall impact of this matter on Mr B, I find £1,000 (in total) is fair and reasonable compensation. The Investigator also recommended UKI reimburse Mr B the cost of his report, plus interest. That’s fair because he wouldn’t have incurred that cost but for UKI’s actions, and it was necessary for him in supporting his claim/complaint. My final decision I uphold this complaint and require U K Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line Home Insurance to: - Add the removal of the kitchen units to the scope of works as previously agreed and reconsider the settlement offer, should Mr B decide to use his own repairers; - Reimburse the cost Mr B paid for the independent report, plus simple interest at 8% a year from the date it was paid to the date of settlement; and - Pay Mr B £1,000 compensation (in total) in recognition of the distress and

-- 2 of 3 --

inconvenience caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. James Langford Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --