Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd · DRN-5906757

The complaint Mr R and Mr R complain about the way Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd (“Accredited”) handled a claim they made on their home insurance policy following an escape of water. Mr R and Mr R are joint policyholders but for ease I’ll refer to Mr R since he brought the complaint to this Service. What happened Mr R and Mr R have home insurance with Accredited. In June 2024 they reported a leak under the flooring in their home. The leak caused damage to the hallway flooring and they noticed damp patches to the kitchen cupboards. Accredited accepted the claim and appointed a loss adjustor to validate it and manage the repairs. The property needed to be dried before any reinstatement works could be carried out. Drying equipment was installed and the property was confirmed as dry in August 2024. The surveyor attended to update the scope and cost of the work. In October 2024 Mr R provided a quote for the cost of the kitchen replacement but Accredited thought it was excessive so asked for a breakdown of the quote. It was confirmed that Mr R was having his kitchen remodelled at the same time as the reinstatement work and had entered into a private arrangement with the contractor. Mr R was unhappy with the quality of the kitchen and didn’t think it was similar to the original one. Accredited agreed to cover the full cost for the replacement of the original wall units and cornice including the ones that were undamaged, so it made a cost settlement offer. Mr R rejected the offer. Mr R said he should have been offered alternative accommodation given the damage to the property. Mr R wasn’t happy with the service received so complained to Accredited. Accredited said it wasn’t responsible for the cost of the private work Mr R had undertaken in the kitchen so it wasn’t prepared to cover those costs. It did offer to cover the original wall units plus £200 towards the labour costs. So the settlement costs offered were around £1200. It said alternative accommodation was provided when the reinstatement works were being carried out. It did accept it could have been more proactive in progressing the claim and offered £500 to apologise for the distress and inconvenience. Mr R didn’t agree with Accredited’s response. He said Accredited failed to compensate him for the damaged kitchen units because he has redesigned the kitchen and those units have not been replaced. So he referred his complaint to this Service. Our Investigator considered the evidence and said she thought Accredited had acted fairly. She said alternative accommodation had been provided while the kitchen reinstatement work was carried out which she said was fair and in line with the policy terms. She said Accredited settled the full cost of the base kitchen units and the wall units, as well as the cornice and pelmets. Since Accredited is only liable to pay for damaged items she thought Accredited had acted fairly in

-- 1 of 4 --

covering the cost for the wall and base units. The Investigator said the offer of compensation was fair in the circumstances. So she didn’t recommend the complaint be upheld. Mr R didn’t agree with the Investigator’s view so the complaint has 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. I won’t be repeating the entirety of the complaint history here in my decision, or commenting on every point raised. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be the key points that I need to think about in order to reach a fair and reasonable conclusion. This reflects the informal nature of this Service, and our key function; to resolve disputes quickly, and with minimum formality. However I want to assure both parties I’ve read and considered everything provided. This Service’s approach in cases like these is to consider whether the insurer acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. Having considered all the evidence I’m not upholding the complaint. I appreciate Mr R has been through a difficult time and this isn’t the answer he wanted. So I will explain why. What does the policy say The starting point for my review is what the policy says about how Accredited deal with claims like this. “We cover your buildings up to the sum insured shown in your schedule against loss or damage directly caused by the following covers; 4. Escape of water or oil.” So I’m satisfied there was cover for the claim under the terms of the policy. Alternative accommodation Most buildings insurance policies provide cover for alternative accommodation, often referred to as AA. The purpose of the cover is to pay for the reasonable additional costs of temporarily rehousing the policyholder when the home becomes uninhabitable. The policy confirms, “we will pay up to £100,000 for the reasonable and necessary costs for alternative accommodation for you and your family if you cannot stay in your home because your home has become unfit for living in following loss or damage”. I can see alternative accommodation was offered to Mr R when the kitchen was being fitted. And this is what I would expect since there was no access to a kitchen during that period and we would consider that to be uninhabitable. During the remainder of the repairs there was access to a bathroom and kitchen so alternative accommodation wasn’t required at this time. I’m pleased to see Mr R was offered alternative accommodation for the period it was uninhabitable so I am not upholding this aspect of the complaint. Quality of kitchen Mr R says his original kitchen was solid wood and the replacement was of a lesser quality. Having considered the evidence its clear Mr R chose the kitchen and sent the invoice to

-- 2 of 4 --

Accredited. Accredited then settled the costs in line with the terms of the policy. I haven’t seen anything to suggest Accredited are responsible for the choice of kitchen. I can’t say Accredited acted unfairly or unreasonably here. I say this because Mr R also chose to remodel his kitchen following the escape of water and this is outside of the terms of the insurance contract. Kitchen cabinets The relevant section of the policy that applies here is ‘Pairs, sets and suites’. The policy says; “we will not pay the cost of replacing or repairing any undamaged parts of the building which form part of a pair, set, suite or part of a common design”. This type of clause is not unusual or uncommon in home insurance policies. That means Accredited only has to cover the cost of replacing the damaged cabinets. The undamaged cabinets are specifically excluded from the policy. The Service’s approach to claims like this is to say we think it’s fair for the insurer to pay 50% of the cost of replacing the undamaged cabinets. Mr R decided to remodel his kitchen while the repairs were being carried out and arranged this with the contractor privately. That means he didn’t replace all of the kitchen cabinets on a like for like basis. Some appliances were moved into the kitchen and took space where some of the cabinets were. As a result, the insurer settled the full cost of replacing the base units and wall units, together with the cornice and pelmets. And this is more than what we would say an insurer should cover since the claim was for five undamaged base units, and two undamaged wall units which Mr R wasn’t replacing. Distress and inconvenience I appreciate Mr R experienced disruption over the period of the claim and repairs. I can see he has put a lot of time and effort into dealing with the claim and complaint. I agree there has been some delays in the handling of the claim and Accredited accept this. It awarded Mr R £500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. I can only consider compensation for the parts of the claim Accredited is responsible for, and where its actions have caused distress or inconvenience over and above what would reasonably be expected in a claim of this type. In this case there were unnecessary delays caused by Accredited. To acknowledge these and the impact on Mr R, Accredited has offered £500 in compensation, which I think fairly reflects the distress and inconvenience caused. Conclusion Whilst I empathise with how stressful this claim has been for Mr R and his family; my role is to assess whether Accredited has met the obligations set out in the policy — and I believe it has. I appreciate that Mr R feels Accredited should have done more, but his view appears to be based on his personal expectations rather than on the level of cover Accredited agreed to provide under the policy terms. I recognise that Mr R has faced prolonged disruption and has invested significant time and effort in pursuing both the claim and the complaint. I understand he will be disappointed with

-- 3 of 4 --

my decision, especially given the distress he has experienced. However, I hope he can see that I have carefully considered all the evidence and assessed the impact in line with this Service’s established approach. My final decision For the reasons explained I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Kiran Clair Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --