Tesco Underwriting Limited · DRN-6212678

The complaint Miss K and Mr M have complained about Tesco Underwriting Limited’s decision to reject their claim under their home insurance policy. What happened The roof on Miss K and Mr M was damaged in Storm Eowyn. They put in a claim for the cost of repairing the damage. Tesco turned down the claim on the basis that the storm had highlighted a defect in the roof on their property. They complained to Tesco, but it wouldn’t alter its position. Miss K and Mr M asked us to consider their complaint. One of our investigators did this. He said it shouldn’t be upheld because he agreed that the damage had resulted from faulty workmanship. Miss K and Mr M didn’t agree with the investigator’s view and asked for and ombudsman’s decision. Their complaint was referred to me. After considering it, I sent an email to Tesco setting out my provisional findings on it as follows: I think it is absolutely clear that Storm Eowyn caused the damage to the roof on the insured property. Tesco has argued the storm identified an underlying issue; and that may be the case. But in order to reject a claim for damage that was clearly caused by a storm Tesco needs to show a policy exclusion applies to defeat it. Tesco did not cite an exclusion in its final response or when it declined the claim, but I consider it needs to be able to rely on one to decline it. The only exclusion I can see that Tesco might argue is relevant is the following one in the general exclusions. Loss or damage caused by faulty workmanship, faulty materials, or faulty design (other than in respect of your liability as owner of the property) However, the damage to the insured property was not caused by faulty workmanship. It may have resulted from it, if the installation of the flashing under the solar panels was wrong. But the exclusion does not exclude damage resulting from faulty workmanship. If you look at the list of exclusions in the policy document you will see the exclusion two above the one I have cited reads loss or damage caused by or resulting from renovation, construction etc. And the key words are or resulting from. If the faulty workmanship exclusion above had these words then - provided I was satisfied there was faulty workmanship on the roof of the insured property and the damage claimed for resulted from it - I would support Tesco's rejection of the claim. But the reality is that these words are missing from the exclusion. So, I am afraid I don't think Tesco can rely on it. As I’ve said, Tesco's rejection mentioned that the storm highlighted a pre-existing issue. And, while this may well be the case, this does not alter the fact that it was the storm that actually caused the damage. This means it is covered by the policy, unless there is an

-- 1 of 4 --

exclusion Tesco can fairly rely on to defeat it. And, as I have already explained, I don't think there is. In the circumstances, I think the fair and reasonable outcome to Miss K and Mr M's complaint is for Tesco to settle their claim by paying the cost of repairing the damage, including the cost of repairing any further damage that has occurred due to the length of time there has been since they made their claim and have not had the funds to get the roof repaired. I also think Tesco needs to pay Miss K and Mr M £300 for the distress and inconvenience they have experienced as a result of Tesco unfairly turning down their claim. I gave Tesco until 27 March 2026 to let me know whether it accepted my provisional findings or provide further comments and evidence to explain why it did not. I also sent a copy of my email to Miss K and Mr M for their comments. Mr M has responded to say he and Miss K agree with my suggested outcome, although he has reiterated his view that there was no fault with the roof at the insured property. Tesco has come back to say it does not agree with my provisional findings for the following reasons. It’s said that the proximate cause of the damage to the roof at the insured property is not storm, because if it was not for the storm the poor workmanship would still have existed. It considers the damage was caused by the original installation of the flashing, which is reflected in other properties along the same row suffering identical damage. It believes storm force winds have merely highlighted an underlying issue, as damage of this nature should not occur in a property built three years prior to the date of the loss. And it thinks this shows the damage was due to incomplete installation/construction. And it does not think it should be responsible for putting right poor workmanship issues. It has again said it thinks the above-mentioned exclusion applies to defeat Miss K and Mr M’s claim. But it has also said it thinks the following exclusions apply to defeat it: Loss or damage caused by or resulting from renovation, construction, structural alteration, repair or demolition within the boundary of the risk address shown within your schedule. Any costs associated with the general maintenance of your home, its structure, roof and routine re-decorating unless required under an insured event. 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 done so I’ve decided to uphold it. I’ll explain why. I have not considered whether or not the flashing on the roof has been installed incorrectly because I do not consider that there is an exclusion Tesco can rely on if this was the case. That is I still do not think Tesco can fairly rely on the above-mentioned exclusion relating to faulty workmanship for the reason I set out in my email. But before I explain why my view on this remains the same, I think it is also worth me addressing the other points Tesco has made. I think Tesco’s conclusion that a storm was not the dominant and effective cause of the

-- 2 of 4 --

damage on the roof at the insured property is wrong. I say this because the flashing on the roof had previously withstood numerous other storms, which I think shows it was the unusually high wind speeds in Storm Eowyn that caused the damage. And I am not at all persuaded by Tesco’s argument that a three year old property can’t be damaged by storm if it is properly constructed. I say this because whether a property is damaged depends mainly on the intensity of the storm, and particularly on the windspeeds. And if Tesco’s claims handlers had watched some of the videos of the damage caused by Storm Eowyn and other hurricane’s with similar windspeeds, I think they should or would have appreciated that it could have caused damage to a properly constructed three year old property. My view is that without Storm Eowyn the damage to the roof on Miss K and Mr M’s home would not have occurred and I think it is more likely than not that the roof would have remained as it was for the foreseeable future and until another storm with very high windspeeds like Storm Eowyn occurred. This means that in order to reject their claim for the damage, Tesco does need to demonstrate that a policy exclusion applies to defeat it or that Miss K and Mr K breached a policy condition which was connected to the loss. And I don’t think Tesco has done this. I do not consider the exclusion relating to general maintenance applies because Miss K and Mr M are not claiming the cost of general maintenance to their home. They are claiming for the cost of repairing damage to it caused by an insured event. I don’t think the exclusion for loss or damage caused by or resulting from renovation, construction etc applies. I say this because I think the way this exclusion is worded implies that only damage that happens during the process of renovation, construction etc is excluded. For example, if Miss K and Mr M were having their home extended or a roof conversion done and the builders caused damage to the home while doing this, this would be excluded. But I do not consider it would be fair and reasonable for it to be applied to damage resulting from faulty construction in itself. Turning now to why I don’t think Tesco can rely on the above-mentioned exclusion for faulty workmanship. As I explained in my email, if Tesco could show that the flashing on the roof at the insured property was incorrectly fitted, then I agree this would be faulty-workmanship. And I can see why Tesco thinks it was incorrectly fitted. Although, I can also understand why Mr M doesn’t think it was. However, if it was faulty workmanship, I do not consider the damage to the roof was caused by it. As I see it the damage was caused by storm force winds. But I would accept that if the installation was faulty then the damage would have resulted from faulty workmanship. But Miss K and Mr M’s policy does not exclude damage resulting from faulty workmanship. So, while it may well have been Tesco’s intention not to cover damage resulting from faulty workmanship, whoever drafted the policy has not, in my opinion, worded the above-mentioned exclusion in a way that allows Tesco to do this. It therefore follows that I do not consider that there is an exclusion Tesco can rely on to defeat Miss K and Mr M’s claim. And I do not consider Tesco has shown they breached a policy condition connected to the loss either. And this means that it remains my view that as part of the fair and reasonable outcome to Miss K and Mr M’s complaint Tesco should settle their claim for the damage to the roof at the insured property. I also consider Tesco should have realised the way the above-mentioned exclusion was worded meant it was not entitled to rely on it. And that the dominant and effective cause of the damage to the insured property was Storm Eowyn. And I think its failure to do so caused Miss K and Mr M unnecessary distress and inconvenience, which warrants a compensation payment of £300.

-- 3 of 4 --

Putting things right For the reasons set out above and in my email of 19 March 2026, I’ve decided to uphold Miss K and Mr M’s complaint about Tesco Underwriting Limited and require it to do the following: • Settle their claim by paying the cost of repairing the damage to the roof at the insured property, including the cost of repairing any further damage that has occurred due to the length of time there has been since Miss K and Mr M made their claim. • Pay them £300 in compensation for distress and inconvenience.* * Tesco Underwriting must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date we tell it Miss K and Mr M accept my final decision. If it pays later than this, it must pay interest on the compensation from the deadline date for settlement to the date of payment at 8% a year simple. My final decision I uphold Miss K and Mr M’s complaint about Tesco Underwriting Limited and require it to do what I’ve set out above in the ‘Putting things right’ section. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss K and Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Robert Short Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --