Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd · DRN-6213266

The complaint Miss M complains about the way Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd handled a claim she made on her home insurance policy for an issue with her drains. What happened In early 2024 Miss M made a claim on her home insurance policy, she said her drains were flooding, and toilets were not flushing properly. Accredited declined the claim, it said it considered the issue to be relating to a broken inlet pipe to Miss M’s septic tank. It said given the policy didn’t cover items that had broken due to their age, the claim wouldn’t be accepted. Miss M complained about Accredited’s decision, and it issued a complaint final response letter (FRL) on 20 May 2024. It didn’t agree to change its position; maintaining that the damage had been caused by gradual deterioration of elements in the septic tank, which the policy doesn’t cover. In June 2025, Miss M contacted this Service. She said following Accredited’s decline of the claim in early 2024, she’d had her septic tank and associated pipework replaced, but issues at her property persisted. She said in March 2025 it had been found she had a leak from a freshwater supply pipe. She wanted Accredited to admit it gave wrong information about the cause of the issue being the septic tank, when she initially claimed, and for it to resolve the internal damp damage at her property and provide compensation for the stress caused. She also complained that even though the claim was declined in 2024, her insurance premium had increased significantly. Around the time Miss M referred her concerns to this Service, Accredited provided a further FRL. This said given the leaking freshwater pipe was located under the property, there would have been no accidental damage (as defined by the policy) caused to the pipes, and so the policy wouldn’t respond. It also said the internal damage to Miss M’s property wouldn’t be covered, because this damage had happened gradually, and gradual damage is excluded under the policy. Miss M asked this Service to consider matters from Accredited’s initial decline of her claim in February 2024. Our Investigator said the complaint about Accredited’s decline of the claim for repairs to the septic tank, answered in the May 2024 FRL had been brought to this Service too late, and so it couldn’t be considered. An Ombudsman’s decision has since been issued, setting out this Service cannot consider matters addressed in that February 2024 FRL. In relation to the parts of the complaint our Investigator was satisfied could be looked at, she was satisfied Accredited’s offer – to appoint a surveyor to assess the internal damage and pay £200 compensation for not doing this earlier– was a fair and reasonable way to resolve matters. She also thought Accredited’s decision to decline the claim for the damaged pipe itself was reasonable, as was its decision not to cover works Miss M had carried out on her septic tank. She was also satisfied that, whilst Miss M’s insurance premium had increased, Accredited hadn’t made an error in its calculation of the premium. Miss M was happy to accept that Accredited would assess the internal damage. But she didn’t accept that the damage to the pipe itself had fairly been declined. And she maintained that Accredited had caused her to incur losses by her having her septic tank replaced when

-- 1 of 3 --

she hadn’t needed to. As such, she asked for an Ombudsman to consider matters and the matter has now come to me to decide. 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. Given Miss M has accepted Accredited’s offer to assess the internal damage, I’m not going to issue any findings on that here, I’ll focus on matters still in dispute. However, in keeping with the informal nature of this Service my findings will be brief, focussing on the key reasons for reaching the outcome I have. Damage to the pipe It is a principle of insurance that it is for the insured – so in this case Miss M – to show she has a valid claim on the policy. So she must show, on the face of it, that the damage is something that her policy covers her for. Miss M’s policy covers her for accidental damage to mains services, including underground pipes. Accidental damage is defined in the policy as “sudden, unexpected and physical damage which: i. Happens at a specific time; and ii. Was not deliberate; and iii. Was caused by something external and identifiable.” Whilst its clear there has been damage to the pipe, I’m not satisfied that Miss M has reasonably shown it is damage covered by the ‘accidental damage’ peril covered in the policy. I understand she had the pipe repaired, before contacting Accredited. But there is nothing in the report provided by her repairer which suggests the pipe was damaged at a specific time by something external and identifiable. Miss M has provided information on what she thinks could have happened, such as the local water authority replacing a stop cock in March 2025, and the pipe being situated at the front of her property, near a road, where vibrations from traffic might have damaged the pipe. But I’m not satisfied she’s shown the damaged happened at a specific time, and it seems accepted that the pipe had been leaking before the water authority carried out works in March 2025. As such, I consider Accredited has fairly and reasonably declined to cover the cost of repair to the pipe. Replacement of the septic tank Following the decline of Miss M’s initial claim in 2024, she had her septic tank replaced with a water treatment facility. She says given the leak that was later discovered in the freshwater pipe, this shows she didn’t need to replace the septic tank, and so Accredited should compensate her for doing so. I realise this has been a difficult time for Miss M, but the challenge is, she hasn’t shown that there wasn’t an issue with her septic tank prior to its replacement. She hasn’t provided any report, prior to or following the installation of her water treatment facility, which shows the septic tank didn’t need to be replaced. I can see Miss M’s concern with all of this, because issues persisted for her even though she’d spent a considerable amount of money replacing her septic tank. However, I’m not satisfied that fact alone means that there wasn’t an issue with her septic tank, nor that Accredited should compensate her for having to replace it. Insurance premium I can understand Miss M’s concern to see her premium increase at renewal in November 2024, even though her 2024 claim had been declined. It isn’t for this Service to tell insurers

-- 2 of 3 --

how to price policies, but we can review its commercially sensitive information, which we receive in confidence, in order to ensure a business has treated its customer fairly. Having reviewed the information provided here, I’m satisfied Accredited has provided this Service with a reasonable explanation for the increase, and it has applied the claim loading as it should have done. I trust this reassured Miss M that she’s been treated fairly in the calculation of the policy premium for the 2024/2025 policy year. Compensation Miss M has told this Service that dealing with the drainage matters at her property has caused significant upset to her life and her wellbeing. But for me to make an award of distress and inconvenience, I need to find that Accredited made a mistake which has been the cause of unnecessary distress and inconvenience. And for the reasons set out above, I haven’t found Accredited’s decline of the claim for the pipe or its refusal to reimburse Miss M for works to her septic tank to be unreasonable. As such, I can’t require Accredited to compensate her for the distress or upheaval that dealing with those matters has caused. When Miss M made a claim for the internal damage to the property, I do consider Accredited unfairly declined that part of the claim. It should have, at an earlier stage, agreed to assess the damage. And I’ve no doubt its refusal to do so has contributed to Miss M’s distress. However, I consider £200 to be a reasonable sum to make up for the distress Accredited’s decision to not offer an assessment earlier has caused. It made its offer to assess that damage around two months after its initial decline. For the distress caused for a two-month period, I’m satisfied an award of £200 is in line with our published guidelines for awarding compensation. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and I direct Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd to: • Assess the internal damage at Miss M’s property. • Pay £200 compensation for unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Michelle Henderson Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --