Ageas Insurance Limited · DRN-6188990

The complaint Mr and Mrs A have complained about the way Ageas Insurance Limited settled a claim they made under their home insurance policy. Mr A has primarily dealt with things so, for simplicity, I’ll refer to him only. Reference to Ageas includes its agents and representatives. What happened The circumstances of this complaint aren’t in dispute, so I’ll summarise the main points: • Mr A got in touch with Ageas about a water leak that caused damage to his home. Ageas accepted the claim. It agreed to settle it by paying Mr A cash to the value of a quote he’d obtained from a builder, in instalments, reflective of the payments Mr A would need to make the builder as the work progressed. • Work began, but a dispute arose between Mr A and the builder about the quality of the repair, and work stopped without being completed. The two parties became involved in legal action. In summary, the Court made awards against both parties, which meant overall Mr A had to make a payment to the builder. I understand Mr A additionally paid around £9,500 in legal fees to a solicitor. • Ageas said it had no responsibility for the builder, or their work, as Mr A had agreed to settle the claim by cash payment. As a result, it didn’t support him with the legal action, and it didn’t cover any legal fees or awards made against Mr A. • Ageas agreed to appoint an expert to schedule the work required to complete the escape of water repairs, but excluding any other damage. Ageas also suggested potential options for settling the claim, but Mr A thought the options were unclear and would likely leave him with a financial loss. • Mr A complained. By the time he referred the complaint to this Service, the expert schedule remained outstanding. I made a final decision in August 2024, based on consideration of the matter up to October 2023. In summary, I said the following: o Ageas acted fairly by settling the claim by cash payment. o Ageas wasn’t responsible for the builder, the builder’s repairs, or any financial losses which flowed from those repairs. o Nor was Ageas required to support Mr A in his legal action with the builder. o Ageas caused avoidable distress and inconvenience when handling the claim and should pay £500 compensation. In part, because Ageas was slow to progress the claim after the repair problems and unclear about exactly what it was offering to do to settle the claim. o I also took into account that Ageas had separately paid Mr A £450, effectively as a gesture of goodwill to cover the cost of the Court fee.

-- 1 of 5 --

o I noted the next steps for the claim in October 2023 were for Ageas to finalise the expert schedule of work required to complete the escape of water repairs, then propose settlement options to Mr A. • In December 2024, Mr A raised a new complaint about how the claim had been handled since October 2023. • Ageas responded in February 2025. In short, it said it had acted fairly. Nonetheless, I understand it later paid Mr A £750 compensation, though it hasn’t explained why and I haven’t seen another complaint response. • Ageas set out its position in May 2025. It offered a full and final cash settlement of just over £60,000, including repairs and alternative accommodation (“AA”). • In September 2025, Ageas revised its position. It increased the total offer to £65,000, then deducted the £9,000 of instalments it had paid earlier in the claim, making the offer £56,000. Though it offered to reconsider the position if Mr A could show he hadn’t retained all of the instalments. It also chose not to charge an excess. • In February 2026, Ageas revised its position again. It deducted the storage costs it had paid in December 2025 and January 2026 from the £56,000 offer, and made a payment for the remaining £55,740. • Mr A thought the way Ageas had calculated the offer meant it would effectively deduct the instalments twice. And he said he hadn’t retained any of the instalments. • The final position reached by our investigator is as follows: Ageas could deduct any instalments retained by Mr A, but that was only £3,000 – not £9,000. And Ageas should pay for storage until the work is completed, up to a maximum of six months from the date of any acceptance of the outcome of this case. So Ageas should pay an additional £6,260 to settle the claim. It should also pay £750 compensation. Though Mr A had to pay costs and interest awarded against him by the Court, and legal fees, Ageas isn’t response for those costs. So they don’t impact the claim settlement. • Ageas thought it could fairly deduct more than £3,000 but ultimately said it wouldn’t challenge our investigator’s suggested outcome. So it effectively agreed. • Mr A thought Ageas should pay more to settle the claim. He also noted he’d paid a further £260 in storage costs. I assume these cover February and March 2026. He also made some other points about the legal action and costs and questioned what impact that should have on the claim settlement. • As an agreement wasn’t reached, the complaint has been passed to me. 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. • When considering what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and, where appropriate, what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. Whilst I’ve read and taken into account everything said by both

-- 2 of 5 --

parties, I’ll only comment on the points I think are relevant when reaching a fair outcome to this dispute. That’s a reflection of the informal nature of this Service. • Ordinarily, I would consider a complaint up to the latest complaint response. But I don’t think that would be helpful here. I’ll explain why. • The latest complaint response I’ve seen from Ageas is from February 2025 – which is long before the offers outlined above, and the final offer made in February 2026. There may have been a later complaint response in which Ageas agreed to pay £750 compensation, but I haven’t seen it. And, in any case, it appears that would also have been long before the offers outlined above. • So, if I restricted my consideration to the latest complaint response, I wouldn’t be able consider any of the offers. I don’t think that would meaningfully help to resolve the dispute, which is primarily about the claim settlement. • Our investigator considered the offers, up to and including February 2026, and neither party challenged that approach. So I’ll take the same approach in order to help both parties reach an outcome for the claim settlement. • My final decision from August 2024 stands. I can’t reconsider that decision or any of the matters which made up the first complaint. Some of Mr A’s comments are about those matters. I don’t wish to appear dismissive but, put simply, as I can’t reconsider those matters, I won’t address the comments related to them. My focus will be on the second complaint. Claim settlement • I think both parties are agreed, in principle, for a full and final cash settlement to resolve the claim. In part, that’s because Mr A would like to carry out uninsured work alongside the insured work, and having one builder carry it all out will be the most economical and practical. So the dispute is just about how much Ageas should pay. • Ageas’ final offer was for a total of £65,000. I’ll consider what it’s made up of. • I’ll start with AA. Ageas offered £7,500 based on a local comparable rental property costing, at most, £1,250 per month. It offered to cover six months, bearing in mind the insured work is thought to take 16 to 18 weeks to complete. That sounds fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and it hasn’t been challenged by Mr A, so I assume he’s in agreement with it too. • Ageas has offered £5,000 which it has labelled ‘difficult managing at home’. It could be clearer, but I think this is a form of compensation for the challenges Mr and Mrs A have faced living in their damaged home for a prolonged period of time. Again, I think it sounds fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and hasn’t been challenged by Mr A, so I assume he’s in agreement with it. • The remaining £52,500 of the offer is for repairs, though not all of it is directly based on a scheduled cost for work. The May 2025 offer began by taking a repair quote from September 2024, adding VAT and a 12% uplift for inflation. That came to £42,248. Mr A said it didn’t include some work that was required, such as the ensuite bathroom and electrics. Ageas added an extra £5,600, bringing the total to nearly £48,000. Ageas’ revised February 2026 offer brought the total to £52,500, so it effectively added another £4,500.

-- 3 of 5 --

• As a result, I think Ageas has reasonably sought to ensure the settlement fully takes account of all the work required to repair the escape of water damage. I haven’t seen an alternative quote for a greater amount. So I don’t think it’s been shown that a greater amount would be more appropriate in the circumstances. • Taking all of that into account, I’m satisfied a total offer of £65,000 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. • Whilst Ageas offered £65,000, it only paid £55,740. Mr A doesn’t think the deductions are fair. • Ageas deducted the £9,000 of instalments it paid earlier in the claim. This seems to be on the understanding that Mr A has retained all of that amount. In principle, I think it’s fair for Ageas to deduct any amount it’s paid and which Mr A hasn’t spent on insured building work. So, if he’d retained the full £9,000, Ageas’ deduction may be fair. But he hasn’t. • Mr A paid the first £4,000 to the builder to pre-order materials and the like prior to starting work. That left Mr A with £5,000. • As a result of the Court action, it was determined the builder carried out work to the value of £5,000. But, due to the level of workmanship, the builder owed Mr A £3,000. So Mr A had to pay the builder the balance of £2,000 for repair work – leaving him with £3,000 of the instalments. So, in relation to building work, that’s how much he retained. And therefore, that’s how much Ageas can fairly deduct. As it actually deducted £9,000, Ageas should pay Mr A £6,000 to put right the over deduction. • In practice, I understand Mr A didn’t actually retain that amount. He had to pay the builder interest and costs due to the legal action, though he received some of his own costs back. And he also had to pay legal fees of around £9,500. So it’s clear he didn’t literally retain the £3,000. But any costs associated with the legal action aren’t the responsibility of Ageas, so I won’t take them into account here. • Ageas also deducted £260 for storage fees. I think this was on the basis it had been paying storage for a prolonged period of time and, with its offer in September 2025, it thought it had put Mr A in a reasonable position and wouldn’t pay for further storage from December 2025 onwards. If it had made a fair offer at that time, I may have agreed. But the full details of the offer were unclear at that time, and Ageas insisted it could deduct the full £9,000 of interim payments. So I don’t think the offer was fair. As such, I can understand why Mr A didn’t accept it. In these circumstances, I don’t think it was fair for Ageas to deduct £260 of storage fees when it paid the settlement. • In total, that means Ageas deducted £6,260 more than it should have done from the claim settlement. So it should pay that amount to fairly settle the claim. • Our investigator asked Ageas to continue paying for storage until the insured building work is completed, up to a maximum of six months, from the date Mr A accepts the outcome of this case. Bearing in mind the AA Ageas has offered, I think this is a fair and reasonable suggestion. Ageas hasn’t challenged this, so I assume it agrees. • I understand Mr A has paid for more storage since the claim settlement. If so, Ageas should reimburse him to comply with the bullet point above.

-- 4 of 5 --

• Ageas chose not to deduct the policy excess of £350. It was entitled under the policy to deduct it. So Ageas treated Mr A more favourably than it had to on this point. Claim handling • Our investigator asked Ageas to pay £750 compensation for the way it handled the claim since October 2023. This was separate and in addition to any other compensation Ageas has paid. Ageas agreed to do so. And I understand Mr A agreed to this too. • As a result, I consider this point has already been resolved, so I don’t see a need for me to discuss it in detail. • But I would note the total compensation paid and offered by Ageas in relation to this complaint is unusually substantial. £5,000 of the claim settlement offer was effectively compensation. And waiving the excess was effectively a further £350 compensation. I understand Ageas may have paid £750 compensation for a separate complaint. And it has agreed to pay an additional £750 compensation for this complaint. Overall, that means total compensation of £6,850 since the first complaint was concluded. That’s in addition to compensation paid for the first complaint. • I think this shows Ageas has recognised the impact its poor claim handling has had on Mr and Mrs A and has taken reasonable steps to put that right. So I’m not directing Ageas to pay any further compensation beyond this. My final decision I uphold this complaint. I require Ageas Insurance Limited to: • Pay £6,260 to settle the claim • Pay storage costs, as set out above • Pay £750 compensation Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs A and Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. James Neville Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --