Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc · DRN-2874581

The complaint Mr B and Ms R complain that Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc (RSA) have declined their buildings insurance claim for two areas of damage in their home. They also complain that RSA’s plans for dealing with damage in a third area are disproportionate. Finally, they say that RSA have failed to handle their claim efficiently and the process has been “chaotic and unpleasant”. Any references to RSA include RSA’s agents. What happened In 2019 Mr B and Ms R noticed a problem with an internal wall between two windows in their basement – a gap between the plasterboard and the wall. In order to sort it out they appointed builders to come in and look at the problem. When their builders removed the plasterboard in June 2019, a sheet of brick work fell in. I’ll refer to this as Area 1. Mr B felt this damage was covered under their buildings insurance policy, and told RSA that a large Plane tree on the pavement above, adjacent to the property, might have caused the damage. Mr B and Ms R engaged their own structural engineer (A) to explore the problem in Area 1. And when A was doing this, they also noted damage to a second area of the property. This was a damaged retaining wall to the north of the property’s lightwell (an open, sunken area to the north and east of the basement). So, A inspected this too. I’ll refer to this as Area 2. A took measurements and produced drawings of Areas 1 and 2 detailing the direction and size of multiple cracks visible in the render. They also recommended a trial pit was dug to expose the foundations of the wall in Area 1. On digging and reviewing the trial pit it was found that vegetation roots were there, and these were sent for identification. The results showed that these were Virginia Creeper roots, rather than roots from the Plane tree mentioned above. A’s initial report, dated 1 August 2019, said: Area 1 – The bulging plasterboard had been due to brickwork leaning against the back of it. They described the problem as “serious and unusual” and concluded the delamination (separation) of the brickwork had likely been caused by subsidence. Area 2 – The retaining wall was “in distress” as a result of “the lateral expansion of the major [Plane tree] roots, pushing the whole wall south at the base by 50 mm or so”. They recommended that the Plane tree be removed, “as it will continue to cause serious problems from its roots to the adjacent and very close north area wall and possibly the main house wall there too.” RSA’s loss adjuster inspected the site in mid-August 2019. They noted there was a 15- metre-tall Plane tree stood about one metre from the property and described three areas of damage; these being the two areas above, and Area 3 being a newer extension at the rear of the house about which Mr B and Ms R had had no prior concerns. RSA’s technical report gave the following conclusions about each area:

-- 1 of 11 --

Area 1 – They said, “This damage is not the result of subsidence because the pattern and nature of the cracks is not consistent with foundation movement.” Area 2 – They noted that the retaining wall was suffering a significant lean towards the house but said, “This damage is not the result of subsidence because the pattern and nature of the cracks is not consistent with vertical foundation movement … the damage is a result of lateral pressure from the retained ground and from ground water. It is also possible that roots from the Plane tree are applying pressure where impacting the back of the wall. The base of the wall is bowed in plan indicating that this lateral pressure is pushing the foundations towards the house. This in turn has led to the upward buckling of the path between the retaining wall and the main wall of the house.” Area 3 – They concluded that the damage here was “indicative of an episode of subsidence” likely caused by root induced clay shrinkage. They said that further investigations would be required to “demonstrate the influence” of the Plane tree. Mr B and Ms R were advised that the damage in Areas 1 and 2 was, “not consistent with subsidence or the operation of any other insured event”. RSA said Area 1 was likely due to “age-related decay”, and Area 2 was due to the “inadequate strength of the wall to sustain lateral earth loads”. They explained that damage in those areas was excluded from cover because it happened “gradually”, and that Area 2 was further excluded because that wouldn’t be covered unless the house was “damaged by the same cause and at the same time”. A, having reviewed RSA’s conclusions, issued a further report dated 6 September 2019. They said in their opinion the damage in Area 1 was due to root induced subsidence “which has caused cyclical movements leading to the delamination of the wall”. With regard to Area 2, A said: “… Given the proximity of the tree it would be surprising if the wall was not subject to subsidence like the house. The damage to the paving in the north area and the bowing, leaning and cracking of the wall is indicative of lateral movement from the tree roots, pushing the wall south. This has been exacerbated by the lean of the tree to the north. This is likely to get worse and we have recommended that the tree should be removed and the wall repaired and reconstructed where necessary.” In September Mr B and Ms R complained to RSA that policy exclusions where being used to “block a reasonable claim”. They said the fall of bricks in Area 1 was a “sudden event” and should be covered. Mr B and Ms R asked us to get involved in November 2019. They said “precipitous delamination” should be covered by the policy. They also explained the problem in Area 2 was affecting the flagstones within the house and so should be covered. Mr B and Ms R said they’d found communication between all parties to be inadequate. Meanwhile an arborcultural expert had visited the property to assess whether moisture abstraction by vegetation was a causal factor in the damage to Area 3. They concluded, in a report dated 8 November 2019, that it was. And they recommended that the Plane tree and a wisteria both be removed. In April 2020 RSA reviewed recent level monitoring readings and explained: “The consultant has reviewed your claim and confirmed there is no adverse risk of heave. We have informed the council’s appointed representative this (sic) and asked them to confirm when they will carry out the tree works.”

-- 2 of 11 --

Mr B and Ms R raised concern that removal of the tree might result in further damage to their house. RSA’s technical experts said they thought any potential heave to the house would be “sustainable especially as the tree is younger than the property”. In May 2020 Mr B and Ms R were in contact with the local council’s tree officer and felling was deferred. But they highlighted that the wall in Area 2 was “now seriously bulging”, that “the flagstones on the path to [their] front [were] raised”, and that Plane tree roots had been found in their laundry room, close to the rear extension and previously (in 2004) under their doorstep. They expressed concern about what would happen to their house if the whole tree were felled, because they’d experienced movement of flagstones on their property previously when the tree was only pollarded. In June 2020 the policyholders were given further reassurance by RSA’s loss adjusters that it would be safe to remove the tree. They were also advised that if they continued to object to the tree’s removal RSA might remove subsidence cover. On 8 July 2020 RSA’s loss adjuster wrote to Mr B and Ms R to summarise the position. They reiterated that RSA had no liability for repairing the damage in Areas 1 and 2 because it wasn’t the result of subsidence. They went on to strongly recommend that the policy holders allow the tree to be felled so that the claim for Area 3 could be progressed. Mr B and Ms R didn’t find a further heave report commissioned by RSA conclusive, and they explained that before a “beautiful” and “protected” tree is felled they wanted the local council or RSA to accept liability for any future problems. RSA confirmed the tree needed to be removed to enable matters to progress. Policy terms and conditions Mr B and Ms R’s policy included cover for physical damage to the buildings (described in the policy) caused by “Subsidence or heave of the site on which the buildings stand or of land belonging to it, or landslip.” The Policy Wording explained: “Subsidence means downward movement of the site on which your buildings stand by a cause other than the weight of the buildings themselves. Heave means upward and/or lateral movement of the site on which the buildings stand caused by swelling of the ground …” It went on to say that damage to walls, patios, paved terraces, footpaths etc wouldn’t be covered unless the insured home was “damaged by the same cause and at the same time”. Mr B and Ms R had also selected an Accidental Damage Option. This covered accidental damage to buildings and explained: “Accidental damage means sudden, unexpected and visible damage which has not been caused on purpose.” The Policy Exclusions section applied to the whole policy. It explained the insurance didn’t cover: “Any loss, damage, liability, cost or expense of any kind caused directly or indirectly by or resulting from wear and tear… or anything which happens gradually …” Our investigator’s view Our investigator didn’t uphold Mr B and Ms R’s complaint. She came to the following conclusions about each area:

-- 3 of 11 --

Area 1 – She didn’t think A’s report adequately explained why they’d concluded the delamination was caused by subsidence, or shown the link between the presence of the roots and the damage. She said RSA’s report was more persuasive. Area 2 – She said both experts have identified that roots from the Plane tree are applying lateral pressure to the back of the retaining wall, and the movement of the wall is consistent with this lateral pressure, rather than subsidence (downward movement). She didn’t think RSA’s decision to decline the claim was unfair. Area 3 – She thought RSA had acted reasonably, and said that the weight of expert evidence pointing towards the removal of the tree outweighed Mr B and Ms R’s concerns about felling and subsequent heave. With regard to Mr B and Ms R’s complaint that the claim had been poorly handled, the investigator noted that the claim had been logged incorrectly at the start. But she didn’t think there’d been any unreasonable delays or poor communication, and pointed out that insurance claims can be inherently inconvenient and stressful. Responses to the view Mr B and Ms R didn’t accept this. They said they remained open minded about the cause of the damage in Area 1 but considered it should still be covered by their policy. They accepted that soil and root pressure is the likely cause of damage to Area 2, but said this should also be covered because it’s damaging the flagstones in the laundry room of their house. They also expressed concern that RSA might be using Area 3 as an excuse to remove the tree rather than accepting their claims for Areas 1 and 2. Finally, they said they fear removing the tree will itself have a detrimental effect on the house and are concerned about the “future insurance position”. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint was passed to me to decide. Further information Mr B and Ms R explained that when the damage in Area 1 was repaired this included new mass concrete strip footing. The Virginia Creeper was also removed into large pots. There have been no further signs of damage since the repairs were done. They also told me that none of the other walls in the basement have suffered a similar problem. Mr B and Ms R also provided me with photographs of the laundry room floor which they said was being damaged by the same cause as the damage in Area 2. RSA also provided some further comments. They said that the cracked render detailed in A’s drawings “is not consistent with subsidence damage or the operation of other insured perils. Irregular cracking, de-bonding or crazing of render finishes, with no distinct pattern is due to one, or a combination of different non subsidence related causes.” They also commented that the trial pit dug by A “simply exposed shallow foundations on clay soils with roots” and did not establish that subsidence had occurred. With regard to the laundry room floor, RSA said that this original flagstone flooring was traditionally laid directly onto the ground without sub-base. So, they said it’s not unusual for roots to be present underneath, or for the floor to become uneven over time, and neither indicates the presence of subsidence or heave.

-- 4 of 11 --

In March 2021 Mr B and Ms R informed us that the Plane tree had been felled without notice. RSA confirmed this had been arranged by the local council. My provisional decision Having considered all the available evidence, I agreed with the investigator that the complaint shouldn’t be upheld, but I wanted to provide more detail about that decision. So, I issued a provisional decision on 11 May 2021 giving both parties a further opportunity to respond. I said: “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, although I know Mr B and Ms R will be deeply disappointed, I don’t intend to uphold it. I’ll explain why and, for ease of reference, I’ll set out my decision in relation to each area of damage. Area 1 – the central pier between the basement windows In cases such as this it’s for the policy holder to show that an insured event has happened. So, I’ve looked at what Mr B and Ms R have said about Area 1 carefully, and I’ve examined their expert’s, A’s, reports in detail. But the evidence they’ve presented doesn’t lead me to conclude its more likely than not the bricks separated and fell in as the result of subsidence or heave. And so, I don’t think RSA’s assessment that the damage wasn’t caused by subsidence is unfair. For this claim to be successful there’d have to be firm evidence of downward movement (subsidence) or upward and/or lateral movement (heave) of the site on which the buildings stand. A says that the property is founded on “shrinkable clay” and that Virginia Creeper roots and dry weather followed by wetter weather in 2018 probably caused the clay to shrink and then expand leading to cyclical movement of the foundations and delamination of the wall. In support of their finding of subsidence they refer to cracking in the external render, observe that paving in this area has lifted and refer to the proximity of the Plane tree. But I don’t think A has provided enough detail to show subsidence is more likely than not the cause here. RSA’s expert has also inspected the property. And they’ve concluded that there is no evidence of downward movement in Area 1. They’ve said this because the pattern and nature of the cracks is “random” and not consistent with foundation movement. They’ve highlighted that cracking with no distinct pattern can have several non- subsidence related causes. RSA have also explained that the findings from the trial pit (Virginia Creeper roots and shallow foundations) do not, on their own, establish that there’s been recent or current downward movement. RSA’s expert has said the delamination is possibly the result of age-related decay. And having looked at the photographs the images do appear to be consistent with that possibility. So, I’m inclined to conclude that A’s conclusions about what’s happened aren’t supported by firm evidence, and that what RSA’s expert has said is more persuasive. Indeed, I note that the policy holders have said they’re open minded about the cause of the damage in Area 1; suggesting they’re not convinced its subsidence related themselves. Mr B and Ms R do, however, believe that the damage should still be covered even if it is, as RSA’s expert suggested, caused by a gradual age-related process which didn’t become apparent until the bricks started to lean on the plaster board and

-- 5 of 11 --

create a gap. But if that was the cause of the delamination, I think it would still be excluded from cover by the general policy exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear. And it wouldn’t fit the policy definition of accidental damage either, as the bricks delaminated and leant on the plasterboard over time, not suddenly. It follows that I currently don’t think RSA have acted unfairly by declining Mr B and Ms R’s claim for Area 1. Area 2 – the retaining wall to the north of the property’s lightwell Having considered the expert opinion from both parties about Area 2 I think there’s a substantial degree of agreement that the damage to the retaining wall is being caused by lateral pressure which involves the roots of the Plane tree growing at street level. I’ve seen no evidence that this wall is moving downwards (subsiding). A, Mr B and Ms R’s expert, has said that he’d be surprised if there wasn’t also subsidence affecting this wall, but I don’t think his comment about that is enough to say there’s evidence of downward movement of the retaining wall’s foundations. Particularly when he doesn’t appear to have disagreed with RSA’s view that the pattern and nature of the cracks is not consistent with vertical foundation movement – A’s said the cracking of this wall is due to lateral pressure from the tree’s roots. But in either scenario – whether the damage here is being caused by lateral pressure or both lateral pressure and vertical movement of the foundations – I provisionally find that this isn’t damage which is covered under the policy; and that’s for two reasons. Firstly, the lateral movement involved here is not of the “site on which the [insured] buildings stand”. It’s the ground under the public pavement, where the Plane tree grows, which is moving. Given that it must be the site Mr B and Ms R’s property stands on that is moving laterally, and that isn’t the case here, I’m currently satisfied RSA has acted fairly by saying Area 2 isn’t covered under the policy. Secondly, a perimeter wall damaged by subsidence or heave isn’t covered under the policy unless the insured home is “damaged by the same cause and at the same time”. In acknowledgement of this term, Mr B and Ms R have sought to show that the lateral pressure pushing the retaining wall is also damaging the laundry room floor. But I haven’t seen persuasive evidence which shows the most likely cause of the damage in the laundry room area is vertical or sideways movement of the ground the site is on. There isn’t any expert evidence that confirms this or provides reasoning as to why they think this is the most likely scenario. And whilst photos have been provided of the laundry room, these aren’t clear on the damage or cause – having no expert commentary on this. But, of course, if Mr B and Ms R wish to provide an expert report which confirms the presence of an insured peril affecting the laundry room floor, I’d take that into account before finalising my decision. Area 3 - the newer extension at the rear of the house RSA have accepted that the damage in this area is covered under the policy as it’s considered to be caused by subsidence. So, the dispute here is confined to whether the remedy (removal of vegetation including the Plane tree) is proportionate. Mr B and Ms R are also concerned about whether RSA will cover/assume responsibility for any problems which might result in future from the removal of the tree.

-- 6 of 11 --

Whilst I do sympathise with Mr B and Ms R’s concern that a tree, which they consider to be valuable to the local environment, should only be removed if necessary, I consider that the weight of professional evidence has recommended that the tree be removed. Both A and RSA’s experts agreed on this point. And RSA maintained this position after the period of monitoring which took place between October 2019 and April 2020. I therefore provisionally find RSA’s decision to arrange removal of the tree before proceeding with the works to remedy the damage in Area 3, a fair and reasonable one. I note that RSA have also tried several times to reassure Mr B and Ms R about this course of action, responding to their policyholders’ concerns. Mr B and Ms R have remained concerned about what will happen in the future despite RSA’s reassurances. But I can’t make findings about something that hasn’t happened yet. I can only say that RSA’s decision to arrange removal of the tree is reasonable. If Mr B or Ms R identifies an issue resulting (or possibly resulting) from the tree’s removal in the future, they will need to raise that with RSA in the first instance. I also don’t think RSA acted unfairly or unreasonably by letting Mr B and Ms R know that if they continued to ask for deferral of the tree’s removal (should that be possible given that the tree belonged to the local council, not the policyholders), they might remove subsidence cover going forward. Policyholders have an obligation to mitigate risk and once a causal factor in damage has been identified it’s not unreasonable to expect that risk to be managed in line with expert recommendations. If it’s not managed because a policyholder objects to the proposed management plan, then it’s for an insurer to review whether it can continue to accept that risk at the point of renewal. Claim handling Mr B and Ms R also complain that RSA have failed to handle their claim efficiently, that communication has been poor throughout, and that the process of making the claim has been “chaotic and unpleasant”. For example, they’ve explained that their claim was initially logged incorrectly, that communication with RSA’s experts about site visits has been poor, that they weren’t kept updated about RSA’s discussions with the local council (particularly about potential legal action), that they’ve often felt like they’re the ones co-ordinating everything (receiving contact from several different parties), and that they’ve been unfairly accused of “blocking” the removal of the Plane tree. I agree that the claim didn’t get off to a good start because of an error on RSA’s part; they mistook Mr B’s description of the damage in Area 1 as relating to a garden wall and rejected it. This caused an initial delay meaning that RSA’s expert didn’t visit the site until mid-August 2019. But very shortly after that visit I find that Mr B and Ms R were clearly informed of the outcome of their claim, and the need for a period of investigation and monitoring in relation to Area 3. Aside from that initial error and some slow responses from RSA at times (it took RSA almost two months to send Mr B and Ms R the monitoring data they requested in August 2020, and the policyholders had to chase a response to an email they sent to RSA’s experts in September 2020 about questions they wanted answers to prior to a further site visit), I’ve seen nothing in RSA’s handling of the claim to suggest Mr B and Ms R’s experience has been unusual or unreasonable in the circumstances.

-- 7 of 11 --

In the context of a dispute between the parties about insurance cover and the plan for remedying the damage in Area 3, I think a certain amount of frustration and dissatisfaction was to be expected. I accept that at times Mr B and Ms R have found themselves in the middle of communications between the insurer, the experts and the local council. But that’s inevitable when those communications are about their property. These types of case are complex, can be time-consuming and necessarily involve multiple parties. With regard to RSA’s description of the policy holders as “blocking” the removal of the Plane tree, I do appreciate that this wording upset Mr B and Ms R deeply. They’ve said it was “a serious and inaccurate allegation”. But I’ve seen nothing to suggest this description was intended maliciously or to influence our review of the case; I read it as a shorthand, albeit blunt, way of RSA summarising the position in July 2020 – the position at that point being that tree works had been deferred as Mr B and Ms R were cautious about that action going ahead. So, I don’t think RSA have failed significantly in their handling of the claim. It’s usual for an insurer to delegate much of the ongoing correspondence about a claim to their experts. It’s also usual for an insurer to communicate with a local council, and talk about potential legal action, if something within the council’s control is identified as posing a risk to the insured property. The “Claims conditions” of the policy explained that RSA reserved the right to start legal action against third parties in the policy holder’s name/s. It’s also not unreasonable for RSA to expect the policyholders to be involved in arranging the experts’ visits to their property. And Mr B and Ms R’s dissatisfaction that those experts didn’t continue to review Areas 1 and 2 is down to the rejection of those parts of the claim earlier on, not an issue of claim handling. Overall, I don’t agree that RSA’s handling of this claim has been poor since July 2019 when their initial error was rectified. Whilst I’m sorry that Mr B and Ms R have found the whole process slow and frustrating, I think much of their experience is inherent to any contested claim of this nature.” Responses to my provisional decision In reply to my provisional decision RSA said they had nothing further to add. Mr B and Ms R accepted that there is no evidence of subsidence in Area 1 or Area 2 but described themselves as “irritated” by the “exclusions” relied on to decline their claim, and asked me to consider the following points:  They said the problem they experienced in Area 1 was “unusual … just the kind of unexpected event for which we take out insurance” and the provisional decision didn’t set out the “evidential basis” for age/wear and tear being the cause. They said age/wear and tear are being used to deny a claim for a “sudden and unexpected event”.  They said the lateral pressure causing the damage in Area 2 is affecting the flagstones in the lightwell and the laundry room, and should be covered because the policy “covers all forms of earth pressure” and RSA’s loss adjuster who inspected the site in mid-August 2019 confirmed that lateral pressure had “led to the upward buckling of the path between the retaining wall and the main wall of the house”. They said, there is “no distinction between the paving in the area/light well, and that in the laundry room which is part of the house”.

-- 8 of 11 --

 They remain concerned about their future insurance premiums and would like to know that these will not increase as a result of RSA’s acceptance of the claim for Area 3 – where the movement has “never been a concern” to them.  They’d like confirmation that RSA will be liable should the removal of the Plane tree result in damage to the house. 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, although I understand Mr B and Ms R are likely to be disappointed, I see no reason to depart from my provisional decision. Once again, for ease of reference I will set out my decision against each area of damage. Area 1 – the central pier between the basement windows As Mr B and Ms R accept there is no evidence of subsidence causing the damage in Area 1, I won’t repeat what I said about that in my provisional decision. Mr B and Ms R, however, remain of the view that their claim for this area should be covered under the Accidental Damage part of their policy as this responds to “sudden, unexpected and visible damage which has not been caused on purpose.” They feel strongly about this matter and believe they had a reasonable expectation of cover. Most insurance policies only cover the events that the insurer wishes to be on risk for. This means that there will be events that aren’t covered at all, and other events which are covered but might be subject to exclusions and/or limitations. So, it’s the policy terms I must consider when deciding whether RSA has dealt with the claim fairly. This is why I made reference to the relevant parts of the Accidental Damage cover above, and in my provisional decision. Whilst I understand Mr B and Ms R’s perspective about their cover for Area 1 because their discovery of the damage was unexpected and sudden, I can’t agree that there’s any evidence that the damage which caused the sheet of brick work to fall was “sudden”. I can’t fairly say that a sudden event caused the brick work to separate, and I think it’s more likely the delamination (a process whereby bricks separate from the bricks behind them) happened over time. Although I do appreciate that what happened was not expected by the policyholders and not caused on purpose. Mr B and Ms R have said that there is no “evidential basis” for age/wear and tear being the cause for the bricks delaminating. But the point here is that Mr B and Ms R haven’t been able to provide anything to suggest an insured event (for example, subsidence or accidental damage) caused the problem in Area 1. And without evidence of an insured event I don’t think it was unreasonable of RSA’s expert to say the delamination occurred gradually and was possibly the result of age-related decay. So, for all the reasons set out here, and in my provisional decision, I find that RSA declined the claim for Area 1 fairly in line with the terms of the policy. Area 2 – the retaining wall to the north of the property’s lightwell

-- 9 of 11 --

Again, as Mr B and Ms R accept there is no evidence of subsidence causing the damage in Area 2, I won’t repeat what I said about that in my provisional decision and will focus instead on what they’ve said regarding the relationship between the damage in Area 2 and the damage to the flooring of their basement laundry room. Mr B and Ms R maintain that the damaged perimeter retaining wall (and the paved area within the lightwell) should be covered under their policy because the insured home – specifically the laundry room – is being “damaged by the same cause and at the same time”. They say, the flooring in the laundry room and the paving in the lightwell cannot be distinguished from one another. But, having thought carefully about what they’ve said, I still don’t think RSA have yet been provided with any evidence that the damage to the laundry room flooring has been caused by an insured event. I agree that RSA’s expert found that lateral pressure pushing the foundations of the “bowed” retaining wall towards the house has “led to the upward buckling of the path between the retaining wall and the main wall of the house”, but that report makes no comment on the flooring in the laundry room. And I don’t think this finding by RSA’s expert can be taken as evidence that heave (upward and/or lateral movement) is damaging the laundry room floor. The photographs I’ve seen of the buckled paving in the lightwell suggest a correlation between the wall’s movement and the upward movement of the paving slabs – the paving slabs no longer lay flat in the area in front of the bowed wall because they’re being pushed together and upwards. But the photographs of the laundry room flagstones don’t demonstrate a similar pattern of movement there. I’ve also seen no evidence that the foundations of the laundry room wall (which is in line with the retaining wall outside but is an internal wall) are being pushed towards the house. Indeed, Mr B and Ms R have previously told me that the wall of the laundry room is “fine”; so, there is no evidence that the laundry room wall is bowed or that its foundations have moved in a way that’s similar to what’s happened to the retaining wall outside. So, I remain of the view set out in my provisional decision. I don’t think the damage to Area 2 is covered because, although there is evidence of lateral earth pressure, the lateral movement is not “of the site on which the buildings stand”, and because it’s a retaining wall and paved area that have been damaged by this lateral pressure. Those structures (walls, patios, paved terraces, footpaths etc) aren’t covered under the policy unless the insured home is “damaged by the same cause and at the same time”, and I don’t agree that what Mr B and Ms R have put forward regarding the laundry room floor amounts to evidence of damage caused by an insured event. It follows that I’d don’t think RSA have acted unfairly by declining their claim in respect of Area 2. Future insurance premiums and future liability Finally, with regard to Mr B and Ms R’s concerns about their future insurance premiums and RSA’s liability if the Plane tree’s removal causes problems for their home in the future, I can only repeat what I said in my provisional decision. The tree’s removal was endorsed by experts from both sides in this case and, on that basis, I can’t say RSA’s decision to arrange removal of the tree was an unreasonable one. If the tree’s removal causes, or is suspected to have caused, problems in the future, Mr B and Ms R will have to raise that with the parties involved in its removal, including RSA. I can’t make findings about something that hasn’t happened yet, nor can I direct RSA to accept responsibility for something that hasn’t happened yet. Similarly, I can’t make findings about Mr B and Ms R’s future insurance premiums. If, at the point of renewal, Mr B and Ms R

-- 10 of 11 --

are unhappy with the cost of their insurance policy it will be open to them to shop around and to make a separate complaint about any increase they consider to be unfair. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold Mr B’s and Ms R’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B and Ms R to accept or reject my decision before 16 July 2021. Beth Wilcox Ombudsman

-- 11 of 11 --