Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company · DRN-6248882

The complaint Mr and Mrs S complained that Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company (“LV”) unfairly declined their claim for damaged flooring caused by a storm, under their home buildings insurance policy. I’ll refer to Mr S for ease. What happened In November 2021 Mr S returned home to find water pooled on the floor near the bi-fold doors at the rear of his home. There was no visible damage, so no claim was made. In the latter part of 2023 Mr S said he noticed sections of the laminate flooring had become damaged. He arranged a surveyor to inspect the flooring to identify an underlying cause. Mr S said the surveyor found that water had entered the flooring, likely from when it had pooled near the bi-fold doors, and tracked further into the building over time. This had caused the flooring to warp. Mr S contacted LV to make a claim in January 2024. It sent an assessor to inspect the damage. The assessor thought the damage was caused by the lack of expansion gaps in the flooring. This had caused it to crack/lift at the joints and been worn over time due to foot traffic through the house. Mr S didn’t agree and complained to LV. In its final complaint response dated 20 December 2024 LV said it had reviewed its assessor’s findings. But it was maintaining the decline decision for the same reasons. Mr S didn’t think LV had treated him fairly and he referred the matter to our service. Our investigator upheld his complaint. He said the report Mr S had obtained was more persuasive than LV’s assessor. His view was that LV should now settle the claim. LV didn’t accept our investigator’s view. It said its position had been prejudiced by the very long-time taken by Mr S to report the damage. Mr S responded to our investigator to say he was satisfied that his claim was to be settled. But he said he’d also asked for compensation for the impact all of this had on him and his family. Our investigator didn’t change his view. As an agreement wasn’t reached the complaint has been passed to me to decide. I issued a provisional decision in March 2026 explaining that I was intending to uphold Mr S’s complaint. Here’s what I said: provisional findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so I’m upholding Mr S’s complaint. Let me explain. It’s for the policyholder to show that they have suffered an insured loss. If they can then, generally speaking, the insurer should pay the claim. This is unless it can reasonably rely on

-- 1 of 6 --

a policy exclusion not to. I’ve focused on this here. I’ve considered the photo Mr S provided from 28 November 2021. This showed a sizeable pool of water on his laminate flooring. This is directly in-front of bi-fold doors at the rear of the property. I can’t see that LV has disputed the validity of this photo. I’ve no reason to question this either. I’m satisfied that a pool of water was present on Mr S’s floor at the time and in the location he reported. I’ve read the building surveyor’s report that Mr S obtained prior to making his claim. I’ve copied the pertinent excerpts below: “It appears that wind-driven rain has made its way into the property via the gaps around the bi-folding doors to the rear elevation of the property and the rainwater has subsequently pooled and collected to the lower lying level of the floor adjacent to this area.” “.. there are some gaps around the bi-folding doors and the corresponding frames.. Some of the vertical door junctions have weatherproof seals, although none are evident horizontally along the top or bottom of the bi-folding doors.. the gap above the operable right side door (when viewed externally) has dropped slightly since installation and falls away to the adjacent door reveal to the right, which has created a slight downwards slope and enlarged gap to the top right corner of the door opening”. “The water ingress.. has subsequently saturated the laminate timber boards local to this area and has tracked along the adjacent areas of the floor leading into the kitchen area and adjacent doorways serving the hallway and the utility room.. notable damage and warping has occurred to these floor coverings, particularly where the floors have been most heavily trafficked. This is considered to have worsened over the months and years.. areas of the floor coverings are now deemed to be in poor condition..” “Readings were also taken with the aid of an electronic damp meter local to the underlay and these were recorded to be moderately damp.” “..we advise having the existing floor coverings taken up and replaced with new.. Should the underlay be found to be defective then this can also be replaced at the time such works are undertaken.” Based on this evidence the surveyor considered it probable that water had penetrated the bi- fold doors during a storm. This was either through missing seals or due to movement in the doors creating a gap. This water soaked into the flooring, and spread over time tracking through the wider ground floor. I’ve read the report LV’s assessor provided. I’ve copied the pertinent excerpts below: “..inspected the bi-fold doors.. no missing seals.. we believe the seal pointed out in the policyholder’s survey was a single vertical seal which he believes should have continued across the frame but there are horizontal seals on the opening door leaves which create a water tight seal when the doors are closed.” “..there are no expansion gaps to the doorways.. this means no expansion from front to back of the property.. this has led to small expansion humps in the floor.. The cracked joints have been walked on over a period of time and this is why the affected joints appear worn.. the damage claimed has been the result of wear and tear..” The assessor determined there were no missing seals on the bi-fold doors. But he didn’t comment on the gaps described in the surveyor’s report caused by movement. Clearly the

-- 2 of 6 --

assessor took a different view of the cause of the damage. I can see that this was put to Mr S’s surveyor for his comments. The surveyor responded to say that, “Water damaged floor coverings would certainly not begin to display any warping until sometime after the event”. He also said that it was suggested that his report referred to missing seals as a common issue. He said this is not accurate. The surveyor explained that the water may have penetrated via the gap in the bi- fold doors at high level and/or through any missing or inadequate seals present. In his response the surveyor explained that the flooring is most likely to delaminate from the joint positions. He also said: “I am not of the opinion that the lack of expansion gaps to the door reveals would manifest as damage in the manner it has done. Whilst the lack of expansion could certainly be a factor, it stands to reason that the damage would be worst along the long continuous runs of flooring (i.e. from front to back or side to side). This is not the case as I recall. The damage is mostly located to the heavily trafficked areas and those which have previously suffered from moisture ingress. I can’t recall having ever seen such extensive damage from purely wear and tear, even in some of the most dilapidated properties I’ve surveyed.” I’ve thought carefully about both reports and the comments provided. The parties differ as to whether the flooring had sufficient provision for expansion. Mr S has supplied evidence that there are expansion gaps under the skirtings, concealed by ‘scotia’ beading. Additionally, he’s shown the flooring has room to expand where it meets the kitchen units. As there is a gap between the kickboards and the walls. The assessor refers to a lack of expansion gaps to the doorways. The surveyor doesn’t dispute this. But he is clear that the damage would not have presented in the way it has if this was the underlying problem. I’ve thought about Mr S’s comments that damage because of inadequate expansion gaps would have shown itself far sooner. I think he makes a fair point. From research online, where flooring hasn’t been laid with the appropriate expansion gap, this generally becomes apparent within a few months. But will certainly become apparent within a period of around six months. This is because it allows for a change in the seasons with the associated temperature and humidity differences. Laminate flooring such as that installed in Mr S’s home is expected to expand and contract with these changing conditions. Inadequate, or no provision for expansion will result in buckling and cracking. Mr S has said that the flooring had been in place for between three and four years by the time the pool of water was found. He said there were no issues with the floor at this time, which he has shown in the photos provided. Based on when the floor was installed an issue would have been apparent far sooner than 2023, which is when the problem was first noticed. I’ve seen photos Mr S provided from prior to the storm up to September 2022 that show little signs of an issue. Whereas the photos from 2023 onwards begin to show swollen joints and lifted sections of flooring. I asked Mr S if he could show the dates these photos were taken using the meta data associated with these images. He responded with this information. This demonstrates the images were taken on the dates as described by Mr S. Based on what I’ve read I’m more persuaded by the surveyor’s description of how the damage occurred. His report is detailed and shows that water could have penetrated through

-- 3 of 6 --

the bi-fold doors in extreme weather. He has shown elevated moisture readings in the underlay. He has also given a credible explanation for how the damage was caused over time by the gradual spread of moisture through the flooring. I’ve thought carefully about LV’s assessor’s view. But I don’t think the evidence supports that a lack of expansion gaps caused the damage. There was space available for expansion of the flooring apart from that noted around the doorframes. I’m satisfied the evidence shows any damage from expansion and contraction of the flooring will have shown far sooner than it did. So, the evidence doesn’t support this as the cause of the damage. LV declined Mr S’s claim under a storm cause. It said the damage was due to wear and tear which his policy excludes. I don’t accept that the damage was caused by wear and tear. There is some additional damage to the flooring where the water ingress had caused it to buckle. This is in the areas that get most footfall. But I don’t accept that wear and tear is the underlying cause. There are three questions we must consider in relation to a storm claim. Was there a storm, is the damage typical of that caused by a storm, and was a storm the underlying cause of the damage. I’ve checked the data from a weather station close to Mr S’s home. This is from when storm Arwen was in force between 26 and 27 November 2021. Wind gusts up to 56mph were recorded along with moderate to heavy rainfall. Mr S’s policy doesn’t give a specific definition for a storm. But winds of this magnitude are generally considered to meet the criteria of storm force. So, the answer to question one is yes. Water ingress is something typically caused by a storm. This means the answer to question two is also yes. For the reasons I’ve already discussed I’m satisfied the storm, and the water ingress that resulted, was the underlying reason for the damage. So, the answer to the final question is yes. Based on this, Mr S has shown that an insured cause applies to his loss. LV has relied on a policy ‘exception’ for wear and tear. I accept that its policy does exclude any damage caused in this way. But the underlying cause isn’t wear and tear. It’s because of water ingress that occurred during a storm. This has resulted in the damaged flooring. So, the proximate or underlying cause was the storm and LV should settle Mr S’s claim under the remaining terms and conditions of his policy, without relying on the exclusion it has. I’ve thought about the impact all of this had on Mr and Mrs S. The period I can consider is from their claim in January 2024 up to LV’s complaint response on 20 December. During this period the condition of the flooring deteriorated. Mr S described how this made the floor unsafe with an uneven surface and sharp edges. Mrs S was pregnant during this period and the condition of the floor caused her difficulties. Additionally Mr S has clearly spent a great deal of time providing evidence and corresponding with LV about his claim. I don’t think LV’s decline decision was fair. To acknowledge the inconvenience, frustration and distress this caused, it should pay Mr and Mrs S compensation. Considering all of this I think a payment of £750 is fair. This aligns with the approach our service takes when making awards. I’ve thought about the cost of the surveyor’s report and whether it’s fair that Mr S paid for this. But the report was obtained prior to him making a claim to LV. So, I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask LV to pay for it. Having considered all of this I don’t think LV treated Mr and Mrs S fairly. It should now settle

-- 4 of 6 --

their claim under the remaining terms and conditions of their policy, without reliance on the exclusion it has already. The business should also pay them £750 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. I asked both parties to send me any further comments and information they might want me to consider before I reached a final decision. LV responded to say that it disagreed with my decision but had no more information to offer. Mr S responded to say that he agreed with my uphold decision and the requirement for LV to settle his claim without reliance on the exclusion for wear and tear. He said he was glad that I had awarded compensation but asked whether this could be reconsidered and a higher amount given. He explained that his young daughter has had to learn to walk and crawl on a floor that has sharp edges and is dangerous. Mr S asked whether LV could be given a more severe financial sanction for the impact its decline decision had on him and his family. He provided a further email that he wrote prior to his complaint being passed to me to consider. Mr S said he decided not to send this email at the time but felt it was appropriate that I had sight of it now. The email sets out how LV had been wrong about his claim from the start. As well as the impact this had on him and his family. 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 carefully read the email Mr S provided. I can understand the frustration he felt with LV’s decision and its continued stance that the damage to his floor resulted from wear and tear. I’ve also considered his account of the difficulties the deteriorating condition of the floor had on him, his wife and their young child. By no means is my intention to diminish the impact all of this has had on Mr S and his family. But having reviewed the approach our service takes to awarding compensation, for distress and inconvenience, I think £750 remains a fair payment. I’ve thought about Mr S’s comments that I should require action that has a more significant financial impact on LV. But the role of this service is to resolve disputes, not to fine or punish businesses. It’s not within my remit to require such action. We do share our complaint insights with the industry regulator. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) is able to use this to help inform its regulatory activities. Mr S can contact the FCA directly if he wishes to. But I won’t be requiring anymore of LV than that I set out in my provisional decision. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company should: • settle Mr and Mrs S’s claim under its remaining policy terms and conditions, without reliance on the exclusion for wear and tear; and • pay Mr and Mrs S £750 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused.

-- 5 of 6 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms H and Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --