QIC Europe Limited · DRN-6210359

The complaint Mr W complains about QIC Europe Limited (“QIC”) and their handling of the claim he made on his home insurance policy, following water ingress to his property. What happened The claim and complaint circumstances are well known to both parties. So, I won’t be listing them chronologically in detail. But to summarise, Mr W held a home insurance policy, underwritten by QIC, when his home was damaged due to water ingress. So, he contacted QIC to make a claim. But he has been left unhappy with QIC’s handling of the claim, including the time the claim has taken, the service provided to him and the quality of the repairs. So, he raised complaints about this at several points throughout the claim process. QIC responded to these complaints and upheld them in part over several responses, offering a total of £2,500 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience Mr W suffered. But Mr W was unhappy with QIC’s response, with his main dispute centring around the work QIC should undertake to his kitchen floor. As Mr W remained unhappy, he referred his complaint to us. Our investigator looked into the complaint and ultimately, didn’t uphold it. Both parties have had sight of our investigator’s outcome, which set out their final position on the complaint. So, I won’t be recounting this in detail. But to summarise, our investigator set out why they thought the £2,500 compensation paid by QIC was fair to recognise the impact caused by the claim delays, service failures and examples of poor workmanship that weren’t in dispute. But they also explained why they weren’t recommending QIC to reinstall the kitchen tiling wall to wall, or pay additional compensation for this point as they had initially suggested, as they were satisfied Mr W had agreed for the kitchen to be installed before the kitchen tiles. QIC accepted this outcome, but Mr W didn’t. In summary, Mr W didn’t agree there was evidence to show he agreed to the kitchen to be fitted without wall to wall tiling being completed. And he set out why he felt he was being unfairly treated because he wanted the work to be completed as quickly as possible while he was in alternative accommodation. He continued to set out why he felt the kitchen floor, and the kitchen itself, was fitted poorly and how it failed to place him back in the position he was in before the insured event occurred. So, he maintained his belief that to resolve the situation, QIC should agree to replace the kitchen tiles to ensure they’re fitted wall to wall, with a kitchen then being fitted correctly above this. As Mr W didn’t agree, the complaint has been passed to me for a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 5 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’m not upholding the complaint for broadly the same reasons as our investigator. I’ve focused my comments on what I think is relevant, in line with our services informal approach. So, if I haven’t commented on any specific point, it’s because I don’t believe it’s affected what I think is the right outcome. Before I explain why I’ve reached my decision, I want to set out clearly what I’ve been able to consider, and how. I note our service has already handled a complaint brought to us by Mr W following QIC’s complaint response issued on 19 October 2023. So, this response and any events that occurred before it hasn’t been considered within this decision. Instead, this decision focuses on the events that occurred from 20 October 2023 up to the point of QIC’s most recent complaint response, dated 4 April 2025, and the complaints raised with them during this time. This means that while I appreciate the claim continued after this point, any events that occurred after 4 April 2025 and any concerns Mr W holds regarding this haven’t impacted the decision I’ve reached. And when thinking about the time period and complaint issues this decision can consider, I must be clear that it’s not my role, or the role of our service, to act as a replacement claim handler or to re-underwrite the claim. This means I won’t be speculating on what repairs I believe should be undertaken or crucially, whether I believe the repairs affected up to the point of QIC’s most recent complaint response were appropriate. Instead, it is my role to consider the actions QIC have taken during the claim, including any offers they have made to put things right including any compensatory award, to decide whether I’m satisfied QIC acted fairly and reasonably. And when doing so, I want to reiterate I’ve made my decision in line with our services informal approach as an alternative to the courts. So, I don’t intend on addressing every issue Mr W has raised directly. Instead, my decision focuses on what I’m satisfied are the crux of Mr W’s outstanding concerns, that remain in dispute. And when doing so, I must be clear that our service doesn’t make findings on whether there has been a breach of contract, as this is a legal determination only a court can decide. In this situation, I recognise QIC have accepted there have been avoidable delays during the claim process. And that their service could have been improved, also recognising there have been issues with the quality of repairs initially affected to Mr W’s home. And to recognise this, they have paid a total of £2,500 compensation, alongside an additional £50 to recognise Mr W not receiving the first £200 offer when he should have. And in response to our investigators first outcome, I note Mr W accepted their opinion that this was a fair offer, less the additional £500 they recommended before withdrawing this, that spoke directly to the kitchen floor issue. As this amount has been accepted, and QIC have accepted their failures here, I don’t intend on discussing the merits of the complaints this total payment recognised in detail. But for completeness. I want to provide a summary of my own thoughts. Having reviewed the evidence available to me, I’m satisfied QIC could have progressed the claim more proactively than they did. And, that their communication with Mr W fell below our services expectations at times. I also don’t doubt it would have been frustrating for Mr W to have to engage with QIC to discuss and agree the snagging works that were required, some of which I’m satisfied could have been avoided had the repair work been of a better quality to begin with.

-- 2 of 5 --

But I am satisfied the total compensatory amount of £2,500 is a fair one, that falls in line with our services approach and what I would have looked to direct had it not already been put forward. I’m satisfied it is significant enough to fairly recognise the distress and inconvenience Mr W would have suffered over an extended period of time, as well as considering there were multiple failures that could have been avoided had QIC acted fairly and reasonably as I would expect. But I’m satisfied it does also fairly reflect the complexity of the claim, which includes the difficulties created by the implication of Mr W’s neighbour, as well as considering the fact that in any claim of this nature, there will always be a level of inconvenience caused by the insured event itself, which isn’t something QIC were able to control. So, I’m not directing QIC to increase the compensatory amount that’s already been paid. I want to be clear this decision is made on the assumption these payments have been made by QIC and received by Mr W. If this isn’t the case, Mr W should confirm the same with QIC and I’d expect QIC to act proactively to ensure any outstanding amount is paid without delay. I then turn to the point I’m satisfied remains the crux of Mr W’s complaint, which centres around the kitchen floor. In summary, Mr W has set out at length why he feels QIC have acted unfairly when only laying the kitchen tiles up to the kitchen units, when before the insured event occurred the tiling was laid wall to wall. Mr W has set out why he feels this is unfair and shows QIC failing to restore his property to its pre-loss condition. While QIC’s position is that Mr W willingly accepted the tiling being laid in this way. And they’ve pointed to their contractor’s opinion that the floor itself needed to be replaced, at a cost to Mr W, before the tiles could be fitted in a way that would allow them to provide a guarantee on the repairs they completed. And ultimately, Mr W chose not to proceed with this replacement. Having considered both parties position, and the evidence available to me, I’m satisfied QIC’s decision to replace and lay the tiles as they did was a fair one, and I’ll explain why. I note Mr W is unhappy the tiles haven’t been laid wall to wall as they were initially. And he feels this failure means the tiles themselves are more likely to incur damage, due to the way they have been laid around the kitchen that was refitted before the tiling was completed. But crucially, I can see in an email Mr W sent to QIC’s loss adjustor, who I’ll refer to as “S”, in December 2024 where Mr W confirmed he agreed to the kitchen being fitted prior to tiling so they could complete the job quicker. And having considered the evidence available to me, I’m satisfied QIC’s contractor presented this option to account for the fact they couldn’t guarantee the laying of tiles due to the floors condition, which I’ll discuss later within this decision. As Mr W agreed to the kitchen being fitted first, I’m satisfied he ought to have reasonably known when he did so that this would mean the tiling wouldn’t be laid wall to wall, as it wouldn’t be possible to do so with the kitchen itself already in place. And if the tiles being laid in this way wasn’t what he expected, I would have expected him to ensure this was communicated at the time. But I’ve seen no evidence that satisfies he did here. So, I’m satisfied the way QIC completed the repair to the kitchen, and more importantly laid the tiles was reasonable, based on the instructions Mr W provided. I note Mr W has disputed this and he has said we should seek confirmation on what he agreed, and when, before the tiling was laid. But I’m satisfied it’s fair for me to rely on Mr W’s own testimony provided to QIC through S.

-- 3 of 5 --

I also recognise Mr W feels he is being penalised for wanting the repairs to be completed as quickly as possible, considering he was in alternative accommodation at the time. But while I appreciate why Mr W would want to return to his home, I remain satisfied QIC and their agents were fair to rely on the instructions and agreements he gave them. And I’ve seen no evidence that satisfies me Mr W was coerced into agreeing something he wasn’t happy with at the time his instructions were provided. But I do note that following the tiles being laid, it’s reasonably clear Mr W was unhappy with the flooring, and he sought repairs to resolve the issue, which included the replacement of certain tiles. So, I’ve thought carefully about this, and the steps QIC had taken to resolve this at the point they issued their complaint response. I note that in an email sent to Mr W by QIC’s contractors on 7 March 2024, they made it reasonably clear they were unable to offer any warranty or guarantee on the kitchen tiles without Mr W completing their recommendation of replacing the kitchen floor. And from what I’ve seen, Mr W chose not to complete this work. Further to this, the email explains without this work being completed they couldn’t guarantee “the tiles will not fail again”. And it appears the tiles have failed in some capacity since they were laid. So, I’m satisfied Mr W ought to have been reasonably aware this may happen, based on the decisions he made. I note Mr W has disputed that there was a pre-existing issue with the floor that led QIC’s contractors to advise further work needed to be undertaken before they could guarantee the repair they affected. But in this situation, QIC’s contractor were the suitably qualified expert. And our service usually deems it reasonable for an insurer such as QIC to rely on the expert opinion they obtain, unless a conflicting opinion from another suitably qualified expert is presented. In this situation, I can’t see Mr W has obtained a professional opinion to support his own and so, I can’t say QIC were unfair to rely on their contractor’s stance. Despite this, I note QIC appointed a separate contractor to complete repairs to the affected tiles, after taking into consideration the breakdown in relationship between Mr W and the original contractor. And from the evidence available to me, noting that neither I nor our service are technical experts, I’m satisfied the repairs QIC proposed looked to address the concerns Mr W held regarding the tiles, and the way they were laid based on the opinion of their contractor and S. So, I’m satisfied QIC had taken reasonable action at the point they issued their complaint response and so, I’m not directing them to take any further action on this occasion. I understand this isn’t the outcome Mr W was hoping for. And I recognise he’s provided our service with significant commentary, alongside supporting photographs, which he feels shows there continues to be issues with the way the tiles were laid. As I’ve set out at length, our service aren’t technical experts and so, it’s not my role to provide an expert opinion on the quality of the repairs, or what should be done to rectify the situation. And I note further repairs were affected after QIC’s complaint response, which means the floors condition following this repair doesn’t fall within the remit of this decision for me to consider. Should Mr W obtain an expert opinion which supports his position and crucially disputes the expert opinions QIC have relied upon thus far, I would expect QIC to consider this appropriately if and when it is provided to them, to ensure the repairs affected to Mr W’s kitchen floor are appropriate.

-- 4 of 5 --

My final decision For the reasons outlined above, I don’t uphold Mr W’s complaint about QIC Europe Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Josh Haskey Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --