Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd · DRN-6125497

The complaint Mrs M and Mr M are unhappy with the decision by Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd (Accredited) following a claim for flood damage on their home insurance policy. Mrs M and Mr M are both party to this complaint. Mrs M has primarily dealt with this service. For ease of reference, I have referred to Mrs M throughout this decision. Accredited is the underwriter of this policy. Accredited has accepted it is accountable for the actions of agents involved in the claim. In my decision, any reference to a company instructed during the claims process includes Accredited. What happened Mrs M held a home insurance policy with Accredited which included cover for buildings and contents, and alternative accommodation. The facts of Mrs M’s claim are well known to both parties. Mrs M made a claim for flood damage under her policy in October 2023. So, I haven’t repeated them in detail here. Mrs M complained to Accredited about several aspects of its claim handling. Accredited considered Mrs M’s complaint and issued a response on 20 August 2024 offering £750 compensation in recognition of its poor claim handling. Unhappy with this response, Mrs M referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service for investigation. The Investigator said this amount was reasonable in recognition of what had gone wrong with the handling of Mrs M’s claim, and the complaint was closed. In the meantime, Mrs M raised a further complaint about outstanding issues relating to the poor handling of her claim. Accredited issued a further final response letter on 20 December 2024 covering the period from its previous final response letter in August to December 2024. Accredited offered Mrs M £300 in recognition of its continued poor claims handling for this period. Mrs M was unhappy with this decision, and so brought her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service for investigation. The Investigator found that Accredited hadn’t handled parts of Mrs M’s claim properly, and recommended it do more to put things right. During our process, Mrs M advised that Accredited had taken steps to address some of her concerns and the claim was making progress. Mrs M said her outstanding complaint relates to outstanding costs for alternative accommodation, storage, and cleaning. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved it has been passed to me for 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. I’d like to reassure the parties that although I’ve only summarised the background to this complaint, so not everything that has happened or been argued is set out above, I’ve read and considered everything that has been provided.

-- 1 of 3 --

The scope of my decision is concerned with events from the date of Accredited’s final response letter of 20 August 2024 to its final response letter of 20 December 2025. It’s not unusual from a claim to continue and be dealt with by an insurer after being referred to the Financial Ombudsman service. I note that’s what has happened here. Since the Investigator’s view, Accredited has taken steps to investigate Mrs M’s concerns and Mrs M has summarised the concerns and costs she considers remain unresolved. The nature of our service is to help resolve disputes informally. So, I’ve focused this final decision on the issues that remain outstanding. For clarity, I have dealt with these in turn. Storage and cleaning Mrs M has confirmed that she has made Accredited aware of outstanding storage costs. Mrs M has also explained ‘Between March and May 2025, I personally had to purchase cleaning supplies and perform extensive cleaning to remove human and animal filth from the bungalow floors. This included damage to my cleaner’s spot cleaner head, which. The cleaning equipment, mop and cleaning materials were purchased post-flood and this remains uncompensated by Accredited. Additionally, the dirty water tank remains impossible to clean, it being tainted by floor sludge. None of this work was paid for.’ I can’t see that these concerns about cleaning costs have been raised directly with Accredited. We generally limit the scope of our decision making to issues which a business has had the opportunity to answer first. This is in line with our rules. Should Mrs M remain unhappy with Accredited’s response to her concerns about storage and cleaning costs, she may refer her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service to be considered in line with our rules. Alternative accommodation From review of the case notes, I have seen in November 2023 Mrs M was informed ‘I have raised a cash settlement for 6 months rental of £6456.00, being an average price of £1076 per month for a 3-bed property, in your area.’ I’m satisfied Accredited’s response was reasonable and in line with what we’d expect. I haven’t seen any concerns raised by Mrs M at the time about the AA offered following her claim. In Accredited’s final response letter of December 2024 it said it had paid AA costs up to 26th October 2024, and that this was four months after the date that the buildings cash settlement was made, and in line with the 12 months cover offered within Mrs M’s policy. Having reviewed everything, up to the date of the costs that Accredited had reviewed as part of its response to Mrs M’s complaint in December 2024, I’m persuaded these costs were paid fairly and in line with the policy terms. Mrs M has explained that she incurred additional AA costs ‘for four calendar months covering November and December 2024, and January and February 2025. This stay cost us £4,000. We could no longer endure living in caravan accommodation that was unfit for our health. Furthermore, Environmental Health declared the bungalow unfit for human habitation circa December 2024.’ I note in its response issued in December 2024, Accredited referred to reviewing further AA costs. And the period Mrs M has referenced largely relates to after Accredited issued its final response letter. With this in mind, Mrs M should raise her concerns about outstanding AA costs for Accredited to consider first. Should Mrs M remain unhappy with Accredited’s response to her concerns about AA costs, she may refer her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service to be considered in line with our rules.

-- 2 of 3 --

Claim handling Firstly, I note Mrs M’s comments about her personal circumstances, including the impact on her health, and that of her family, and challenges she has been dealing with. I’m empathetic to all that Mrs M has explained, and I would like to thank Mrs M for taking the time to share this information with me. As I understand this cannot be easy to share. I’m mindful that a claim like this can involve a degree of upset and frustration because of the very nature of what has happened. And although Accredited didn’t handle the claim the way it should’ve, I still think Mrs M would’ve been caused upset and stress because of the inconvenience of making an insurance claim and not being in the comfort of her home and familiar surroundings. Although upsetting, this is something Accredited isn’t responsible for and wouldn’t be expected to pay additional compensation for. I can only direct Accredited to pay compensation for the impact on Mrs M because of its failings on the claim. And I recognise that this is a finely balanced exercise. All things considered, including Accredited’s previous offer for its poor service (not subject to this complaint), and Accredited’s more recent offer of compensation of £300, I’m broadly satisfied that this amount is fair and reasonable and in line with our approach. It is for Mrs M to decide if she wants to accept this. I say this because it reflects the period of poor claim handling that I’m considering as part of this final decision, and my overall decision on other matters raised. I appreciate that this will come as a great disappointment to Mrs M. But for the reasons explained, I won’t be asking Accredited to do anything more in settlement of this complaint. Mrs M should contact Accredited to discuss any outstanding concerns that haven’t already been raised. My final decision For the reasons given above, I uphold this complaint. Accredited Insurance (Europe) must pay Mrs M £300 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M and Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Neeta Karelia Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --