Inter Partner Assistance SA · DRN-5992631

The complaint Mr H is unhappy that Inter Partner Assistance SA (“IPA”) walked dirt through his home when attending to fix a broken toilet flush handle under his home emergency policy. He complains that the repair was not completed satisfactorily. When I refer to what IPA said or did, it should be taken to include things said or done by its representatives. What happened The background to this complaint is well-known to both parties, so I’ve summarised what I think are the key events. Mr H had home emergency cover underwritten by IPA provided through his bank account. Mr H asked IPA to fix the broken toilet flush handle (“handle”) after it snapped off. When IPA attended the same day, he said the engineer didn’t wipe their feet or wear shoe coverings, and the replacement handle was out of line. Mr H complained to IPA because his recently cleaned carpet was dirty with what he thought was dog excrement walked through by the engineer. He sent photos of the mess which he said the engineer had refused to clean up. Mr H also complained about the placement of the handle. IPA sent its final response to Mr H’s complaint, dated 25 July 2025, in which it said there was no proof who caused the mess on the carpet and its engineer said the carpet was dirty on his arrival. In respect of the handle, IPA said it had snapped off and its engineer replaced it, but it didn’t sit straight due to the design. IPA offered to return to investigate the handle further. IPA didn’t uphold Mr H’s complaint. Unhappy with IPA’s response, Mr H brought his complaint to us. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. He said although the photos did show dirt on the carpet, there was no evidence that IPA had caused it and the marks appeared to be old. In respect of the emergency repair, our investigator said IPA fulfilled its responsibility under the policy by installing a replacement handle, making the toilet operational again. Mr H didn’t agree. He raised seven points, including one additional complaint about IPA’s submission of photos he hadn’t authorised its engineer to take, and he provided further evidence in respect of his carpet cleaning. Mr H made detailed reference to legal cases in support of his complaint and he asked for further consideration. Because Mr H didn’t agree with our investigator the complaint was passed to me to decide. 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 not to uphold Mr H’s complaint. I realise this will come as a disappointment to him, but I’ll explain why I’ve reached this decision.

-- 1 of 4 --

Mr H referred to various legal cases in support of his complaint, and rules which set out how financial businesses should treat their customers. I’ve summarised IPA’s responsibility as follows: The Financial Conduct Authority’s rules (ICOBS 8.1.1) say that insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly. And its principles say that firms must act in the best interests of their customers and treat them fairly. I’ve taken these rules, relevant law, best practice, and the balance of probability into consideration when deciding whether IPA handled Mr H’s claim fairly and reasonably when it attended his home to complete a repair. Mr H provided a lot of information in support of his complaint. While I have not referred to every piece of evidence, I’d like to reassure both Mr H and IPA that I’ve considered everything relevant to the complaint. I’ll address the key issues under separate headings for ease of reading. Carpet Mr H said IPA’s engineer brought dirt into his house on his shoes and walked it into his carpet. He complains that the engineer didn’t remove his shoes, didn’t use shoe coverings, or even wipe his feet. IPA has not disputed that its engineer didn’t remove his shoes but denies having caused the dirty marks on the carpet. The evidence Mr H provided includes photos of his carpet after the engineer visit, photos of the carpet after the marks were cleaned, and two copies of the invoice to demonstrate that the carpet had been cleaned before and after the engineer visit. The invoice, dated 21 October 2025, shows that a home care company billed Mr H for three cleaning visits which took place on 3 June 2025, 7 July 2025, and 28 August 2025. The first invoice Mr H provided had limited information in the description and included only the number of billed hours and a description of house cleaning. The address was incorrect so Mr H provided evidence of an email asking the residential care company to amend the invoice. The second invoice showed a more accurate address and the cleaning description had been amended to show the second visit (7 July) as “80% of these hours were spent cleaning the carpet which is £36.00”. The first visit remained as house cleaning and this is the visit which Mr H said was for carpet cleaning prior to the engineer’s visit. I have no reason to doubt that Mr H’s carpet was cleaned on these two occasions. That is, one three days before the engineer’s visit and one a month after the visit, although it’s not clear whether that means vacuumed or washed. Turning to the photos Mr H provided, I can see that the carpet was dirty after the engineer’s visit and cleaner after the carpet was cleaned a month later. Again, I have no reason to doubt that the photos are an accurate reflection of the condition of Mr H’s carpet. However, I cannot reasonably conclude that the engineer caused the marks. That’s because three days passed between the carpet cleaning and the engineer’s visit and there’s nothing to indicate that the carpet was any cleaner or remained clean during that period. Mr H has indeed pointed out in his submission that “there are no contemporaneous pre-entry images”. I also think it’s likely that if the amount of dirt evident on the carpet had originally been on the engineer’s shoes, Mr H or the engineer would have noticed sooner and Mr H would have refused entry, or continued entry to his home. I’ve based this on the fact that Mr H stressed that he does not wear anything on his feet in his home, so I think he would likely have paid particular attention to the condition of a visitor’s shoes. Even if I’m wrong about this, the fact remains that there is no clear evidence that the engineer caused the dirty marks.

-- 2 of 4 --

Based on the evidence and what I think is likely to have happened, I see no reason to conclude that IPA was responsible for marking the carpet during the emergency repair visit. I do not uphold this element of Mr H’s complaint. Repair Mr H said the handle was not fitted level and the engineer left it that way. IPA explained that the design of the toilet and handle meant that it did not sit straight. Nevertheless, it offered to send another engineer to look at making an adjustment. The home emergency policy provides emergency assistance for certain events. Here, Mr H’s only toilet was not operational because the handle had snapped off. Under the policy, IPA was responsible for carrying out an emergency repair to restore functionality. I’ve looked at the photos IPA provided in direct relation to the toilet repair only. They show the toilet with a missing handle; the snapped off handle on the box below; the replacement handle in its packaging; the replacement handle fitted showing the interior of the cistern, and the toilet with the replacement handle fitted and the snapped-off handle still visible on the box. So, I’m satisfied that the toilet had been fitted with a replacement handle, that it was working again, and that IPA carried out a repair in line with the policy required and promptly. While the policy doesn’t necessarily provide for a permanent repair, here, the temporary/emergency repair was the same as a permanent repair. I understand Mr H wants the handle to sit straight on the cistern, and I don’t think that’s unreasonable. However, that would amount to a cosmetic repair which is his responsibility to arrange. The policy states, “We may not replace parts on a like for like basis but will provide an alternative suitable for containing the emergency”. IPA had resolved the emergency and, despite the policy not covering a permanent or cosmetic repair, it offered to send another engineer to amend the handle. As there’s no obligation under the policy to do so, I think that’s a fair and reasonable offer and not something I would’ve required. Additional comments Mr H wanted to add a further issue of complaint regarding the photos IPA provided. I can only consider matters raised directly with IPA which it addressed in its final response letter. I understand our investigator confirmed this. However, I would like to stress that I have relied only the photos of the carpet which Mr H provided, and the photos provided by IPA which relate directly to the emergency repair. I’ve noted Mr H’s complaint that the engineer didn’t wear protective shoe coverings or remove his shoes. As there’s no obligation to do so, and I’ve already addressed the matter of the dirty marks, I cannot reasonably conclude that IPA fell short in its standard of service. Mr H said there had been speculation about the age of the dirty marks on the carpet. In my decision I have concluded, simply, that in the absence of photos of the carpet immediately prior to IPA’s visit, there is no evidence of who caused the marks. My final decision For the reasons given, my final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr H’s complaint about Inter Partner Assistance SA.

-- 3 of 4 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Debra Vaughan Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --