Domestic & General Insurance Plc · DRN-6259785

The complaint Ms S complains about the way Domestic & General Insurance Plc (‘D&G’) handled a claim for a blocked shower drain under her home emergency insurance policy. What happened In August 2024 Ms S noticed that her shower’s drain was blocked. She contacted D&G and made a claim. D&G sent a contractor I’ll call ‘C’. C was engaged to carry out the task by another company ‘S’. S is a company D&G uses to outsource its responses to claims – in other words, it’s a company that provides the claims handling on behalf of D&G. It’s important I say that D&G is responsible for the actions of both S and C (as well as other contractors it uses). C unblocked the drain then ran water to check it. Water then appeared in Ms S’s kitchen, which was below the shower. Water ran down the walls. Ms S told D&G about this. It said she could raise a claim through C’s public liability insurance and/or through her buildings insurer. D&G said it wasn’t responsible for the leak or damage. C’s public liability insurance company didn’t think C was responsible. Mrs S complained. D&G awarded her £100 compensation for the delays in responding to the complaint. Ms S brought her complaint to this service. She’d like D&G to accept responsibility and pay for the repairs and some compensation. She provided an estimate from her own contractor which said replacing the kitchen would be around £13,250. Our investigator looked into it and thought it would be upheld. He said D&G should increase its compensation to £1,000 and take responsibility for the damage caused by the leak when the contractor attended. He thought it should repair or pay the damage or provide a cash settlement to Ms S. D&G didn’t agree with the view. Because it didn’t agree, this complaint has been passed to me to make a decision. I issued a provisional decision intending to clarify the resolution talked about in the view and slightly increase the level of compensation: I need to start by saying that D&G is responsible for the actions of C and S as its agents and I don’t think its abdication of responsibility about the damage that happened is fair. It generally seems accepted there was a leak caused by C’s actions. I’m unsure of how this actually happened, and I can see from the file that there’s been discussion between this

-- 1 of 5 --

service, Ms S, S and D&G about the tools that were used by C. I don’t think the discussion is relevant enough to include here. Ms S told this service that another contractor came and repaired the leaking pipe, adding a part to stop it continuing, and requiring a large hole to be cut into the kitchen ceiling. I think this reasonably shows that C caused the original leak, but I note Ms S also says the leak sometimes recurs. However, I think it’s worth mentioning that there are two relevant factors that may have affected the outcome. The first is that there may have been some type of loose, damaged or badly fitted fittings in the pipework below the shower. There is a suggestion that this may have been dislodged by the tools C used. The tool shouldn’t have been sufficient to do this, which is likely why S has talked about some sort of pre-existing weakness in the pipework. The second factor is that D&G and S have talked about the condition of Ms S’s home. They’ve mentioned that they think there may have been pre-existing damage. As evidence for this, photos of Ms S’s kitchen have been provided, mostly taken on behalf of D&G. But there’s no report from an inspection of Ms S’s property, despite D&G’s insistence that the photos clearly show the situation. Ms S has also talked about that her floor has started to slope and buckle, meaning there may be damage below the floorboards. It’s important I say that this service isn’t an expert on causes of damage, but I don’t think D&G has acted fairly here. When the damage was reported by Ms S, it seems to have taken every action to devolve itself of responsibility for what had happened onto S and C. The only report produced seems to have been done by C’s insurance company, and that’s not been provided to D&G and isn’t on file. What this means is that I don’t think D&G can say with any certainty what went wrong with C’s work, or whether Ms S’s damage was pre-existing or not to any reasonable level of confidence. D&G’s handling of the situation has also meant Ms S isn’t able to claim on her own buildings insurance policy due to the passage of time. Ms S has talked about the damage getting worse over the eighteen months since the leak first happened. This isn’t acceptable. But, it’s important I say that I’m also not able to ascertain what the actual situation is with Ms S’s property and what the cause(s) were of the damage, beyond that there was a leak at the same time as C’s attendance. The fact is that, on the file I have, there are merely photos of Ms S’s kitchen dated on C’s visit and about three days later. It’s now 18 months later, and Ms S says the damage has got worse. I suggested to both parties that an independent inspection may be a suitable way forward. Both parties responded and asked specifically why I thought this would be required. D&G said:

-- 2 of 5 --

“While we remain open to facilitating the Ombudsman’s request, we would be grateful, given the volume of detailed evidence already provided, if the specific rationale for a loss adjuster inspection at this stage could be explained. This would not only help us move this complaint towards resolution but also helps us improve our experience for customers in future.” Ms S said: “While I am willing to cooperate with a further inspection if required, I do not fully understand why this is necessary at this stage. The property has already been visited multiple times — including by the contractor’s supervisor and another loss adjuster — and photographs were taken during those visits. I feel I can comment that, if the information about what went on was already on file, then the situation should have been rectified already.” As both parties seemed to agree that no further inspection is necessary, despite the apparent lack of meaningful evidence on file, I feel that the only remaining solution I can reach would be to require D&G to carry out the rectification work. I’ve mentioned above that Ms S obtained a quotation for the work that needed doing. The heading on the report says “renew bathroom” but the detail talks about “rip out and renew kitchen due to water damage from leaking pipe from bathroom. also level kitchen floor due to water damage, renew ceiling as damaged from the leak” I can see D&G has asked why it’s being asked to contribute towards the bathroom, but I don’t believe that’s what the quotation talks about. My provisional decision is that D&G repairs the kitchen in line with the works described in Ms S’s quotation, or pays her cash in lieu of the repairs. This choice will be Ms S’s. The quotation was produced in June 2025, and it’s likely to have increased due to inflation in the meantime, but I think that’s also D&G’s responsibility to pay due to the time it’s taken to deal with the problem. Given that I think D&G has caused significant distress and inconvenience to Ms S, I will also expect D&G to pay substantial compensation. The reason I say this is that I don’t think D&G’s actions in sending Ms S to S, C, or her own insurance, were fair, and that has caused a lengthy period of disruption to her family life for two rooms that are necessities. It’s my intention this compensation figure will be £1,000, but this is in addition to the £100 compensation paid to date (which was for its complaints handling). I note that D&G has said it’s already placed S’s insurer on notice about a possible claim against it. For the avoidance of doubt, this is D&G’s responsibility to resolve as Ms S’s insurer. Responses to my provisional decision Ms S accepted my provisional decision. D&G responded and said it didn’t agree that the cause of the leak had been generally accepted as I’ve said in my provisional decision. It went on to say that photos on file dated three days apart showed no change in the condition of the kitchen. It said it thought an independent inspection and report would find a suitable way forward.

-- 3 of 5 --

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. I’ve considered D&G’s response carefully. I agree with its point that the cause of the subsequent leak may have been other than by C’s actions. Perhaps what I meant to say was that C attended to fix a leak, and there was a subsequent escape of water affecting the property shortly after, which seems to have continued. It seems reasonable to think that C’s actions on behalf of D&G were either causal factors, or closely linked, or exacerbated a weakness that existed. As a reminder, it’s not this service’s role to determine how an incident was caused. It’s an insurer’s role to show, if it wishes to decline a claim, that the circumstances weren’t covered under its policy terms. And in this case, I don’t think D&G has done this despite a significant amount of time passing, and many opportunities to inspect, determine and reasonably prove what took place and the causal factors. What this means is that I don’t think D&G has acted fairly in how it’s dealt with Ms S’s claim, and I’m going to require it to carry out the repairs to Ms S’s kitchen, or provide her with a cash-in-lieu settlement for this. The choice will be Ms S’s. Ms S has said she will obtain an updated quotation for the work. As I set out above, I don’t think D&G’s actions were fair over an extended period and they’ve caused Ms S significant distress and substantial inconvenience for a period of about 18 months. Its actions prevented Ms S from being able to make her own claim for damage, and as I’ve said above, D&G’s approach to pass responsibility to S and C was not fair or reasonable. Its response to my provisional decision to suggest that a further inspection and report was needed, I think, proves that it didn’t understand the nature of the situation at almost any stage of the claim or complaints process. I’d already suggested this approach to D&G, but had been asked why this approach was needed given the evidence on file – I find its approach very poor. But it’s not this service’s role to penalise or punish a company. What I’m able to do is consider Ms S’s distress and inconvenience caused by D&G’s actions and award compensation accordingly. I’d previously said I’d award Ms S £1,000 compensation, in addition to the amount already paid by D&G. Ms S has accepted this, and this will stand. My final decision It’s my final decision that I uphold this complaint. I direct Domestic & General Insurance Plc to: • Pay Ms S £1,000 compensation for her distress and inconvenience. This is in addition to the £100 it’s already paid. • Carry out repairs to the kitchen in line with the estimate provided by Ms S, or provide her with a cash in lieu settlement (at Ms S’s choice, and including increases due to the passage of time). D&G must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it Ms S accepts my final decision. If it pays later than this, it must also pay interest on the compensation from the deadline date for settlement to the date of payment at 8% a year simple.

-- 4 of 5 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Richard Sowden Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --