Tesco Underwriting Limited · DRN-5921413

The complaint Miss J has complained that Tesco Underwriting Limited hasn’t fairly settled a claim she made under her buildings insurance policy for subsidence damage. All reference to the insurer Tesco in my decision includes its agent handling Miss J’s claim on Tesco’s behalf. What happened In 2022 Miss J reported damage to her property to her insurer Tesco. Tesco accepted the claim as a subsidence damage claim, which it settled in 2025 after a period of movement monitoring. Miss J complained to Tesco as it didn’t agree that external doors had been damaged by the insured event. Tesco said they were damaged due to wear and tear, so it said they didn’t include them under the claim. Miss J complained to Tesco but it didn’t uphold her complaint. So she brought her complaint to us. One of our Investigators agreed there was an element of wear and tear damage to the external doors. But he didn’t think Tesco hadn’t reasonably shown that the external doors hadn’t been damaged by subsidence. He found the evidence showed on balance they most likely did. So he thought Tesco should meet the claim for the external doors: either by way of repair, or replacement if a long lasting and effective repair wasn’t possible. And he recommended Tesco pay Miss J £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience its decision had caused her. Miss J accepted the Investigator’s view. Tesco disagreed. It says a comment was made by a contractor that the external doors had been damaged by movement. But the damage was later discussed between Tesco’s appointed agent and the building contractor’s manager who was familiar with the claim. Tesco says it is clear from the notes of that discussion and photos provided that it was subsequently agreed that the cause of damage was wear and tear. So as Tesco disagree, the case has been 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. Tesco arranged for monitoring of movement to be carried out over a period of two years. Trees at the front of Miss J’s property were removed in 2022. Trees to the rear of the property were monitored until their removal in November 2024. Miss J reported twice in 2023 that she was unable to lock both the front and rear doors due to further movement. Each time Tesco’s appointed agent arranged for the locks to be

-- 1 of 3 --

adjusted so that Miss J could close and lock the doors. Tesco’s agent say they did this on a without prejudice basis to mitigate the risk of a burglary for Miss J. In December 2024 Miss J asked Tesco’s agent to visit her property again to assess the damage caused by movement, as both external doors had required the locks to be realigned on a couple of occasions. She explained that cracks in the home had got worse since 2022. It was agreed that further photos of the doors would be taken by a contractor at the start of reinstatement works on 17 February 2025. On providing the photos, the contractor, titled as ‘claims manager’ reported the following by email: “Both doors are of timber construction and do show signs of usual wear and tear. However, both doors also show signs of movement issues. Both door frames, the rebate lock keeps having to be adjusted, the internal door frames have been planed in various areas.” In March 2025 Tesco told Miss J that her claim for the doors would not be included as the damage was caused by wear and tear. As the Investigator explained, there’s no dispute that there is an element of wear and tear to the external doors. But I think it is also clear that the damage is consistent with that caused by movement. Vegetation was removed from both the front and rear of the property, and cracks had grown and spread throughout the property. The necessity to adjust the locks to the external doors due to movement seems consistent with damage caused by the insured event which Tesco accepted. So although on further review, Tesco’s agent decided not to include the doors in the claim, I don’t find this decision was reached in a reasonable way. I don’t think Tesco has provided persuasive evidence to show that the dominant cause of damage to the external doors is wear and tear in this case. To put things right, I think Tesco should arrange for effective and long lasting repairs to the external doors and frames as part of Miss J’s claim. If this isn’t possible, Tesco will need to arrange replacement of the same under the claim. I think Tesco’s decision to reject this part of Miss J’s claim has caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. For this I think Tesco should pay Miss J £150 compensation, which she accepts. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require Tesco Underwriting Limited to do the following: • Reconsider Miss J’s claim for damage to external doors and frames: provide either a long lasting and effective repair, or replacement. • Pay Miss J £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Tesco Underwriting Limited must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it Miss J accepts my final decision. If it pays later than this it must also pay interest on the compensation from the date of my final decision to the date of payment at a simple rate of 8% a year.

-- 2 of 3 --

If Tesco Underwriting Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to withhold income tax from that interest, it should tell Miss J how much it’s taken off. It should also give Miss J a tax deduction certificate if she asks for one, so she can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss J to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Geraldine Newbold Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --