British Gas Insurance Limited · DRN-6211893

The complaint Mrs M complains about the response of British Gas Insurance Limited (‘British Gas’) to her home emergency insurance claim. Any reference to British Gas as the underwriters (insurers) of this policy includes the actions of any agents acting on their behalf. A family member has been helping Mrs M with this claim and complaint. In my decision, I’ll only refer to Mrs M. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties and has occurred over a long period of time. I won’t repeat in detail what’s already known to both parties, instead, in my decision I’ll focus mainly on giving the reasons for reaching the outcome that I have. Mrs M had a home emergency insurance policy with British Gas. In August 2023, a claim was made on the policy following the appearance of a damp patch in Mrs M’s property. British Gas accepted the claim and arranged for investigation works to take place – which included lifting carpet and floorboards within the property. No leak was located and British Gas recommended that Mrs M consider having the property roof looked at. Mrs M had repair works to the roof carried out privately, but this didn’t resolve the damp patch issue and by September 2024 another damp patch had appeared. Mrs M notified British Gas of a smell within the property. Following several cancelled, moved or incomplete appointments, an engineer attended on 21 November 2024. Floorboards were lifted to provide access. It was around this time that Mrs M says she became aware that some fibre boards under her carpet may not have been replaced following the previous British Gas access works in August 2023. Further access works took place in December 2024 to try and establish if a leak was ongoing. This again failed to identify a leak. Mrs M says it was around this time she remarked a ‘spring’ to the flooring on her landing and several bedrooms where British Gas had caried out access works. She made British Gas aware and raised a complaint about the alleged failure of British Gas to properly reinstate her flooring following their previous visits and alleged this caused damage, safety issues and premature aging of the carpets in her property where access works had taken place. British Gas initially said their engineers hadn’t interfered by cutting floorboards, lifting fibreboard or carpet. An offer (later withdrawn) was made to resolve the complaint which included £1,000 toward access costs, £265 compensation and credit towards Mrs M’s premiums. In May 2025, British Gas arranged for their engineers to attend Mrs M’s property to repair issues with the floor – but not the carpet. They withdrew the £1,000 part of the offer. In their final response letter dated 5 June 2025, British Gas partially upheld the complaint. They offered an increased total of £450 compensation for service issues and £100 account credit. Remaining unhappy, Mrs M referred her complaint to our Service for an independent

-- 1 of 6 --

review. Our Investigator recommended that the complaint be partially upheld. Neither party accepted the recommendations and the complaint was referred to me for a decision. I recently sent both parties a copy of my provisional, intended findings. As the deadline for responses has now passed, I’ve considered the complaint for a final decision. 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. Our Service is an alternative, informal dispute resolution service. Although I may not address every point raised as part of this complaint - I have considered them. I make this point as over 3,000 pages of evidence have been provided in this complaint. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party – it simply reflects the informal nature of our Service. Responses to my provisional decision Both parties responded. Mrs M told us: “All upstairs carpets, including the landing, Bedrooms 1, 2, and 3, and the stairs, were installed at the same time to ensure a consistent and matching finish throughout. Unfortunately, we have been unable to source an exact match for the areas damage has been suffered. We have been advised that maintaining a uniform appearance, as currently is the case, would require replacement of the stairs and all upstairs carpets together, at a cost of approximately £4300 to £5000 (rough estimated prices provided in July 2025 based on room sizes, similar carpet quality) depending on the condition of the underlay. At present, we do not have the budget to proceed with full replacement. This is why we previously agreed to the £1000 contribution rather than seeking full renewal costs, as we felt that would be disproportionate. In light of this, may I ask if it would be agreeable that British Gas make payment of the £1000 directly to us in full and final settlement, without requiring us to proceed immediately with replacement or to obtain quotes at this stage. This would allow us to retain the contribution towards the premature damage caused while replacing the carpets when financially feasible. Securing of further quotes will likely require additional time off work, which I am keen to try to avoid.” I won’t be changing the direction as previously set out as I consider it the fairest resolution to this dispute. If Mrs C doesn’t wish to proceed with replacing the carpet right now but does want the contribution, she will need to speak to British Gas about this. British Gas provided a detailed response too. They disagreed with the outcome and direction. I won’t address all points made, only the key ones. They said: “There is no evidence—on the balance of probabilities—that our engineers removed fibreboard or that our works caused the alleged deterioration to the carpet. The statement in our Final Response letter merely recorded the absence of fibreboard; it did not admit removal. Our contractor also confirms fibreboard was not removed by them.” I’ve set out in my findings why I’m not persuaded by this defence. They’ve also said:

-- 2 of 6 --

“The policy already provides a clear monetary limit for “getting access and making good” (up to £1,000 per repair) and a clear exclusion for carpets/floor coverings. Recognising a carpet contribution here would cut across those terms and create inconsistency for other customers.” I’ve considered the individual circumstances of this complaint. The consequential loss Mrs M has suffered here is because of the actions of British Gas when responding under a contract of insurance. The reference to the policy allowance was to highlight what ought to have happened when responding to the claim – but it didn’t. I’m directing British Gas to compensate Mrs M under our remit - having carefully considered their obligations to treat customers fairly and The Consumer Duty. Overall, as no new evidence has been provided that would materially change the outcome I’d previously intended to reach, I find no fair or reasonable reason to deviate from my previously set out findings and they form the basis of this, my final decision. My key findings I partially uphold this complaint, for the following main reasons. It’s disappointing that British Gas caused avoidable uncertainty by not accepting their agents’ had carried out access work on floorboards and other parts of the floor beneath the carpet layer. On 16 January 2025, British Gas said: “We have taken advise from our dispatchers on this one, the piping and the wood, looks like an installation issue and [British Gas agents] have only replaced the pipe and not made access in the wood. Therefore, they do not believe this was caused by the engineers and will not be re-attending to fix.” Mrs M then provided images that proved British Gas did lift the carpet to gain access and eventually it was agreed in May 2025: “we are waiting for [Agent’s] response in agreeing to re-attend and hopefully this should be advised within the next couple of days, as stated I will contact you as soon as they respond. As from the complaint point of view, we have agreed to offer the below resolution: £1,000 contribution towards the flooring and carpet £265 compensation for the original appointment issues and associated lost annual leave £100 credit to be applied to our account” Shortly afterwards, British Gas told Mrs M on 27 May 2025: “…we have discussed this matter further and unfortunately, we have it confirmed that the £1000.00 cannot be offered, again we do apologise that this was advised previously. As recompense for this being incorrectly advised then we can increase our original compensation offer from £265.00 to £450.00 as well as the £100.00 credit, we can still review the issue with the carpets if a receipt or quote is provided, this has been confirmed as our final offer.”

-- 3 of 6 --

It was no doubt frustrating for Mrs M and it will have undoubtedly caused a loss of expectation, but British Gas were entitled to review and withdraw their £1,000 offer. The test I’m applying is whether the withdrawal of the offer was fair based on the available evidence. The offer was initially put forward and then reviewed internally by a senior member of staff. I’ve considered British Gas’ actions in relation to this point under our fair and reasonable remit. British Gas referred to this policy not covering the cost of repairs to the carpet (bold added for Ombudsman’s emphasis): “We won’t be responsible for repairing any pre-existing damage, nor will we replace or restore the original surface or coverings, for example, tiles, floor coverings, decoration, grass or plants…” I agree that this is in line with the policy terms. However, the policy terms also state: “…access and making good - getting access to your appliance or system, and then repairing any damage we may cause in doing so, by replacing items such as cabinets or cupboards that we’ve removed and by filling in holes we have made and leaving a level surface. See page 30 for more details.” Page 30 states: “In addition to the cost of parts and labour, our insurance products and our insurance service and repair warranty products cover up to £1,000 including VAT for getting access and making good…” My interpretation of the policy terms here is the policy allows up to £1,000 towards trace and access costs, and British Gas’ intention is to leave the property in the same condition they found it, where possible. I find it was reasonable that British Gas arranged for their agents to revisit the property and put right the issues underneath the carpet. However, this doesn’t recognise the potential impact/premature wearing of the carpet caused by their failure to leave the flooring in the same condition as they found it. The issue wasn’t identified by Mrs M until around 15 months after the initial visit to her property. I’ll now address the most contentious part of this dispute. Did British Gas’ actions when responding to this claim cause a consequential loss for Mrs M? Mrs M has said the carpets were wool and fitted in 2013. So, they were around 10 years old when British Gas first responded to her claim. Her main argument is the repeated lifting of the carpets across multiple visits have damaged the carpet along with the failure to reinstate fibreboard underneath the carpet. Mrs M argues that the failure of British Gas to properly relay floorboards, the removal of fibreboard and a lack of carpet grippers will have contributed to a shortening of the carpet’s longevity. I also note a contemporaneous email from Mrs M dated 27 May 2025 (following British Gas’ agent visiting the property) stated:

-- 4 of 6 --

“We now have full use of Bedroom 3 again, and the fibreboard and carpet grippers have been reinstated. [Agent] has also confirmed that the absence of the fibreboard likely caused the excessive wear to the carpet and damage to the underlay, which we had hoped to reuse when we eventually replace the carpet. In their final response letter dated 5 June 2025, British Gas said: “[Agent] did agree to attend on 23 and 26 May 2025 and completed the work on the flooring and the fibreboard and carpet grippers have been reinstated, making the bedroom safe and you were satisfied with the work that was completed, the engineers also noted the absence of the fibreboard likely caused the excessive wear to the carpet and damage to the underlay.” British Gas have recently told our Service when questioned about the above extract: “The final response states “the engineers also noted the absence of the fibreboard likely caused the excessive wear to the carpet and damage to the underlay.” This does not state that our engineers removed the fibreboard, only that the engineers noted the absence of it likely caused the wear and tear – this does not evidence that our engineers removed this. [Agent] have confirmed they did not remove fibreboards – if they had been removed, they would have been put back during the access/repair.” I’ve thought carefully about this and kept in mind why British Gas would reattend and resolve issues with the fibreboard and carpet grippers if they hadn’t failed to do so when responding to this claim? This was in addition to initially offering £1,000 towards putting the flooring and carpet right. On balance, I’m most persuaded by photo evidence provided by Mrs M supports that there previously was fibreboards in the areas that British Gas worked on. I’ve cross referenced this with the photos provided by British Gas as part of their ‘job notes’. I find that British Gas have contradicted and undermined the credibility of their position on more than one occasion. Of course, I acknowledge that wear and tear will have occurred over time and will be greater in areas where there was more footfall/use. Other factors such as whether footwear was allowed on the carpet, conditions in the property and direct sunlight can also influence the life span of carpet. Mrs M has provided photographs that show there most likely was fibreboard under the carpet prior to British Gas visiting her property. She’s said: “the areas where the fibreboard is absent correspond exactly with the locations where the floorboards were lifted to access the pipework. There are no missing sections elsewhere.” I find the evidence supports the position taken by Mrs M and have arranged for our Investigator to share it with British Gas. British Gas amended their offer in the final response to a total of £550 compensation (service issues and renewal unhappiness). I consider this part of the offer fair. Putting things right Previously British Gas had said: “we can still review the issue with the carpets if a receipt or quote is provided”. I direct British Gas to now do the below: • Subject to Mrs M providing two quotes for repair/replacement of the carpet in the affected areas, British Gas will need to contribute a maximum of £1,000 towards

-- 5 of 6 --

repair/replacement and fitting costs of a like for like carpet. This amount is to be paid direct to Mrs M. • If the repair/replacement costs are greater than £1,000, Mrs M will need to make up the difference. Likewise, if the replacement costs are less than £1,000, that’s the most British Gas will need to pay. This is because it’s clear not all the carpet in the property needs replacing, but the actions of British Gas when responding to this claim have contributed towards premature aging/wear of the carpet in the areas they worked on. British Gas told us: “We sent the £450.00 via BACs on 6 June 2025, but I am unable to see the £100.00 was applied to the account. We will of course still honour this – we can either apply as account credit or send a payment as BACs.” • If the £100 credit hasn’t been paid, I direct British Gas to make this payment direct to Mrs M, rather than apply account credit. My final decision My final decision is that I partially uphold this complaint. Subject to Mrs M accepting the decision before the deadline set below, I direct British Gas Insurance Limited to follow my direction as set out under the heading ‘Putting thigs right’. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Daniel O'Shea Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --