AmTrust Speciality Limited · DRN-6239104

The complaint Mr A complains about the actions and settlement offered by AmTrust Speciality Limited following an incident which resulted in damage to his rental property. what happened Mr A notified AmTrust of an incident to his property in September 2024. The claim was progressed but Mr A was unhappy with the speed at which it was being moved forward and a complaint about the delays was made in December 2024 after Mr A had previously chased AmTrust for updates. AmTrust apologised for the claim delays and paid Mr A £100 for the added distress as a result of the progress and issues here. Mr A provided a number of quotes for the costs of the repair. These were around £10,000 plus VAT and AmTrust said its loss adjuster needed to consider whether the costs claimed for was reasonable. Mr A didn’t want the loss adjuster to visit the property without authority and when they proposed a date for the visit, Mr A asked if this could be postponed. The loss adjuster didn’t see the request to postpone the visit and attended the property without Mr A being present. The loss adjuster completed their report on what they felt was required to repair the damage to Mr A’s property and in March 2025, it offered to cash settle the works for £2,440.71 less the policy excess of £100. This was paid in May 2025 to Mr A. Mr A complained that the loss adjuster trespassed and breached his rights when ignoring his request – he also complained to the police. Mr A said he didn’t think the claim settlement offered was fair either. He said AmTrust needed to do the work or demonstrate why the amount it offered to repair his property was enough to do this. He’s taken the time to get quotes from trades people and in the absence of AmTrust doing the same, he didn’t think its offer was fair. Our investigator looked at this complaint and didn’t think AmTrust had acted fairly when making the offer it had to settle the claim. They said because AmTrust had not offered to complete the work and with the belief that the loss adjusters assessment included work which was supported by the quotes Mr A provided, they felt it was fair to expect AmTrust to cover the cost, as set out by the quotes. They also felt AmTrust should pay an additional £100 for the added distress and inconvenience with the handling of this claim. AmTrust didn’t agree with the investigators opinion, it felt the settlement made was reasonable and highlighted the quotes provided by Mr A both said the work included the reinstatement of the entire driveway. Its loss adjusters assessment didn’t support this was needed and only the damaged areas of the block paving needed to be lifted, set aside and then reinstated once the ground had been repaired. This was in addition to the repair of the fencing which needed completing.

-- 1 of 4 --

Our investigator maintained their outcome and the complaint was referred for decision when AmTrust failed to provide a further response. I issued a provisional decision on this complaint on 5 March 2026. I said I was planning on reaching different outcome to that of our investigator and I didn’t think the costs presented by Mr A were a fair presentation of the work needed to repair the damage from the insured event. So I didn’t think it was reasonable to expect AmTrust to pay more than the amount it had demonstrated was needed to repair the damage as Mr A’s quote included betterment. I’ve set out below what I said: I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I am not planning on asking AmTrust to increase its settlement offer as I don’t think it has been demonstrated the settlement offered and paid in May 2025, is an unfair claim settlement. But I do think it is right it reflects the added distress and inconvenience with the service failings with the claim handling. There is two parts to this complaint, the concerns about the service received and the complaint about the claim value. I’ll deal with this separately in my decision. Claim value Mr A doesn’t think it is fair that the cost of the quotes he has provided to repair his property and its driveway have not been accepted. He feels when AmTrust has been unable to complete the repair itself, it is reasonable to expect it to complete the repair his builder has said is needed. Our investigator set out that broadly speaking, we expect a business to complete a repair and if it cannot, it would be fair to cover the cost of the repair, based on the cost to the customer and not what it might cost it to complete the repair. As a starting point, this is correct. However, we also need to be satisfied that the cost presented by the customer is reflective of the work required as a result of the insured peril and what is needed to put this right. Here, the damage to Mr A’s property is to the fence on the perimeter of his driveway and to the block paving along the boundary line. The quotes Mr A has provided say the following: • £8,500 plus VAT for redo driveway including all material and labour cost. (remove whole old driveway and build complete new driveway). • £1,500 plus VAT for installing new fences on front and side of driveway including all material and labour cost. AmTrust has not been able to instruct a builder to complete the works it thinks are needed but has completed an assessment of the property to determine what damage has been caused by the claim event. It feels only part of the driveway has been damaged by the vehicle which crashed into the property and it has set out what is needed to put this right. The pictures provided support AmTrust’s assessment that the entire driveway has not been damaged. I think these also demonstrate the boundary fence between the neighbouring property and Mr A’s property has already been reinstated. So, the fencing cost is limited to the fencing at the front of the garden.

-- 2 of 4 --

The policy does not provide cover for replacing undamaged parts of the building which form part of a set and with the driveway only being damaged in part, an expectation that AmTrust needs to cover the cost of its entire removal and reinstatement is not reasonable. Nor does the policy extend to this liability. The policy says AmTrust will pay for the full cost of the repair for loss or damage. The quotes Mr A have provided do not show the repair being offered is limited to the damaged areas only and so in the absence of this, I am not persuaded Mr A has demonstrated the costs he is claiming for are fair. If Mr A is able to obtain a detailed quote which shows, based on the scope of work provided by AmTrust and its agent, that the cost of the repair is greater than the settlement provided, I’d expect AmTrust to consider this and pay Mr A the difference. But based on the information provided and what I am considering here, I think it made a fair claim decision when paying Mr A the settlement figure it has, based on the information available at the time. Claim delays and service AmTrust has a responsibility under the Insurance Code of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) to make sure it progresses claims promptly and doesn’t unreasonably decline any claims made. There was some delays at the start of this claim with it being almost two months after the claim was raised before AmTrust confirmed the claim was being accepted and progressed. It is also clear from the email communication that Mr A was chasing for updates and emails were not responded to quickly. AmTrust did recognise its service failings when the complaint was raised about these and it offered £100 to acknowledge the impact of this. I think at this point, it was a fair award to represent the additional inconvenience Mr A was facing when dealing with this claim. In an effort to progress the claim AmTrust instructed a survey of the property and damage – this informed its schedule of work and estimated cost of this. I can see Mr A asked AmTrust to delay this visit and he didn’t want it to take place in his absence and this request was missed by the surveyor and they attended without Mr A. Mr A has said he complained to the police about this as he feels it was a trespass and any outcome of the police investigation isn’t something I will comment on. With AmTrust wanting to progress the claim, following the earlier delays I can understand why even if the email was received ahead of the visit, why the surveyor might have wanted to attend anyway, even to inspect the property from the pavement. But I think it is fair to acknowledge the added distress and inconvenience of this situation. Mr A had asked for the visit to be postponed and was distressed when this took place in his absence. I think the ultimate claim decision and settlement offered is fair, but an increase in the distress and inconvenience award is warranted to reflect this. I think an additional £200 taking the total payment for the impact of this claim handling to £300 is fair and I plan on asking AmTrust to make this payment to Mr A. This is an award which reflects the errors and how these have added distress which could have been avoided.

-- 3 of 4 --

AmTrust didn’t provide a response to the provisional decision. Mr A did respond to say he felt the change in outcome was unfair. He felt he had demonstrated detailed quotes which showed the work needed and the cost of this. He provided a copy of the quotes he’s previously provided but nothing new was sent in for review. 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. Having reconsidered the evidence and arguments made by Mr A in light of the provisional decision, I see no reason to depart from what I said in this and set out above. I appreciate this is a disappointing answer for Mr A but he hasn’t provided any new information to support why the total cost of the quotes he has provided represents the cost to repair the damage from the insured event. In the absence of this my opinion remains it is an unfair amount to ask AmTrust to pay. I do believe there was some avoidable added distress and inconvenience of the situation with the handling of the claim and it is fair this is recognised, but I do not agree the settlement value should be increased. Putting things right AmTrust should pay Mr A an additioanl £200 to reflect the impact of the claim handling and how its agents actions added to this with Mr A – taking this total award to £300. If it has paid the £100 previously offered, it need now only pay the £200 increase. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I uphold Mr A’s complaint in part. Thomas Brissenden Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --