Domestic & General Insurance Plc · DRN-6256323

The complaint Mr P has complained about the way Domestic & General Insurance Plc (D&G) have handled his claim for repairs to a dishwasher. What happened Mr P has appliance insurance cover with D&G which protects his dishwasher in the event of mechanical breakdown, amongst other things. In July 2025, he made a claim that it wasn’t draining properly, and an engineer attended. Both parties agree there were access issues (the dishwasher is integrated), meaning a repair wasn’t possible. Mr P subsequently raised a complaint. He was unhappy the repair hadn’t been completed and complained that the engineer had caused damage to the surrounding area and cabinets. D&G confirmed parts for the repair had been ordered and they were looking to book in a repair. They said Mr P’s claim for damage caused by the engineer had been raised to their public liability insurer. Mr P remained unhappy and brought his complaint to our Service. Our Investigator looked into it and ultimately recommended that D&G pay Mr P £100 compensation. She noted Mr P had signed to confirm there had been no damage to the property. Mr P didn’t accept this and so the case has been passed to me to decide. Amongst his points in reply, he said he had proven the damage and that his confirmation was before a full inspection. He didn’t agree the engineers should attend again to complete the repair. I issued my provisional findings on 16 March 2026, an extract from which forms part of my decision below. I think D&G should do as the Investigator recommended and no more. I’ll explain why. Mr P is complaining about the repairs to his machine and the water damage and structural damage to surrounding cabinets. I will address each of these in turn for ease. Mr P is understandably unhappy he has been without a working dishwasher since the repairs were attempted almost nine months ago. D&G accept they are responsible for the repairs under the terms of the policy and have sanctioned their engineers to attend to complete the works. I find this a reasonable response. Whilst I understand Mr P’s reluctance and concerns, D&G have shown they have already paid their engineer contractors for the

-- 1 of 3 --

necessary replacement parts (approximately £300). I find it reasonable and appropriate that they attend to finish the work. Mr P has provided evidence of damage caused by the attending engineer. This was passed on to the engineers and their public liability insurer through D&G. I think this was the right thing to do as that is the correct recourse if an engineer has caused accidental damage during his work and is why they have their own insurance policy in place. The engineers and their insurer have not accepted any claim for damage. They have provided the reasons for this through D&G: • Mr P signed to say, “I confirm that whilst work has been carried out, my appliance was left in good working order with no damage to product, property or person.” • The water damage was consistent with gradual wear and not from any sudden error and leak caused by the attending engineer. • The photo provided by Mr P of the damage to the cabinets “shows more clearly where the bolts are located, high up on the dishwasher, thus if the engineer had pulled the machine out and damaged the surrounding cabinets, the damage would be higher up than where it actually occurred”. D&G have maintained the position set out by the engineer’s insurer and declined to provide any further compensation for damage. Although Mr P has given an account of what happened, I am more persuaded by the evidence detailed above. That the damage isn’t consistent with the alleged actions of the engineers and so I find D&G are acting fairly in not considering it further. As well as compensation for damage, Mr P says he wants compensating for the time he has been without a dishwasher. D&G have shown they have continuously been willing to have the repairs completed and so I can’t hold them responsible for the majority of this time. It was Mr P’s decision not to allow the engineers to complete repairs that they had the parts for. I do find that D&G have been slow in giving an answer and providing a full response and reasoning from the engineer’s insurer. This might have allowed Mr P to have moved forward sooner and I agree with the Investigator that £100 compensation for the inconvenience and impact is fair. In summary, D&G are responsible for the appliance repairs but should be given the opportunity to complete them, through their chosen repairers. There is insufficient evidence to conclude the attending engineer caused any water or structural damage that D&G should compensate Mr P for. However, there have been some delays and £100 would be appropriate. D&G didn’t respond to the PD by deadline. Mr P responded to say he accepted the provisional findings. 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. Neither party have provided me with any reasoning to depart from the findings I previously

-- 2 of 3 --

set out provisionally. My final decision I uphold the complaint and require Domestic & General Insurance Plc to pay Mr P £100. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Yoni Smith Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --