Tesco Underwriting Limited · DRN-6259308

The complaint Mr R complains about the way Tesco Underwriting Limited (“TUL”) handled his buildings insurance claim. Any reference to TUL includes the actions of its agent. What happened Mr R had a buildings insurance policy with TUL. He made a claim for an escape of water in September 2019. He complained to TUL saying it was taking too long to deal with his claim. TUL issued a final response letter (FRL) in October 2019 saying it had needed to carry out validation checks, and that the claim hadn’t been delayed. Mr R referred the complaint to this Service in December 2019, but it wasn’t pursued at that time. In late 2025, Mr R got back in touch with this Service asking for an update on his complaint. He said he also wanted to raise a complaint about TUL cancelling his policy before the claim had been resolved. I’ve written to both parties to explain why this Service can’t consider Mr R’s complaint about the cancellation of his policy because it was made too late. But said this Service can consider his complaint about TUL’s handling of his claim until the date of its FRL. An Investigator didn’t uphold Mr R’s complaint about the delays. Mr R remained unhappy, and so, the complaint has been passed to me for an Ombudsman’s 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’ve also kept in mind TUL’s responsibilities as an insurer to handle claims fairly and promptly. Having done so, I’m not upholding this complaint – I’ll explain why. Shortly after Mr R made his claim, it came to light there was a discrepancy between the number of bedrooms the property had. Mr R said the property had five bedrooms when he made the claim, but only three bedrooms had been declared when taking out the policy. This together with concerns about the occupancy status of the property led TUL to request additional information from Mr R so it could validate the claim. It asked Mr R to provide occupancy information as well as utility and council tax bills for the two years prior. Mr R couldn’t provide the occupancy information immediately, and whilst he had been able to provide some of the requested billing information, it wasn’t for the entire two-year period. At the time of TUL’s FRL, the information it had received from Mr R had been passed to its underwriters for validation. Needing to validate a claim is part and parcel of any insurance claim. And it was reasonable

-- 1 of 2 --

when discrepancies regarding the size of the property and its occupancy came to light that TUL needed to carry out further validation checks – and it did so, by requesting reasonable information from Mr R. I’m satisfied this happened in a reasonable timeframe – namely, a matter of weeks. And that some of the time taken was due to Mr R not being able to provide the information. So based on what I’ve seen I’m satisfied TUL handled the claim fairly and didn’t cause any avoidable delays up until the time it issued its FRL. So, I won’t be directing it to take any further action in respect of this complaint. My final decision My final decision is I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Nicola Beakhust Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --