Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Public Limited Company · DRN-5901248

The complaint O, a limited company complains about the way Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Public Limited Company (‘Ecclesiastical’) handled a claim O made on its property insurance policy. Mr E, a director of O, brings the complaint on its behalf. What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so the following is a summary of key events only. O is a management company set up to run a block of four flats. O held a property insurance policy with Ecclesiastical which covered the block, including Mr E’s leasehold flat (“Flat B”), which he rented out. In 2021, there was a flood at the property which affected the basement flat (“Flat A”), who made a claim under the policy with Ecclesiastical. The claim was finalised in 2022, and the total claim cost was approximately £130,000, which included electrical works and a claim for loss of rent. In February 2025, O raised a complaint to Ecclesiastical about the 2021 claim and said: • Unnecessary electrical works were carried out in Flat A, which significantly increased the overall claim cost. • The works took too long, resulting in an increased loss of rent claim. • O was not kept properly updated about the claim as costs increased. • Works were carried out in common parts without proper notification. • The size of the claim led to a significant increase in the O’s insurance premiums. Ecclesiastical considered the complaint and issued a final response in March 2025, but they didn’t uphold the complaint. They said the electrical works were undertaken on the advice of a qualified electrician and were necessary to ensure compliance with current regulations. They also said they’d been in regular contact with Flat A about the ongoing claim and overall, Ecclesiastical did not agree they had acted unfairly and maintained all works were carried out safely. O remained dissatisfied with the response to the complaint – so, it brought it to this Service. An Investigator looked at what had happened and considered two aspects of the complaint. First, she outlined that the eligible complainant bringing the complaint was O, and because some of the complaint points were about Flat A’s claim itself, while the policy was in the name of O, that didn’t mean we could look at Flat A’s claim. The Investigator then looked at the remaining complaint issues, including the points around Mr E’s own flat as well as common parts that would be covered by O as the policyholder, but ultimately didn’t recommend the complaint should be upheld. Mr E, on behalf of O, did not agree with the Investigator’s conclusions and said: • The insurance policy with Ecclesiastical was in the name of O, and works on Flat A

-- 1 of 5 --

were made under that policy. • As a director of O, Mr E paid a quarter of the cost of the premiums for the policy. • On that basis, Mr E did not understand why this Service couldn’t consider issues around Flat A’s claim. • Mr E said he understood DISP 2.7.6R would apply to the circumstances of the complaint. • The electrical work being carried out by somebody qualified did not guarantee the works were carried out correctly or confirm the safety or quality of the work. • Insulation was installed between the ceiling and the joists without contacting Mr E for permission which amounted to a trespass. • Ecclesiastical said they had left sufficient air space above the insulation layer to avoid overheating the existing cables but Mr E didn’t believe this was the case. • Works were performed in the common parts without permission or notification. The visible works in the common parts of the building were left in an unsafe state. • The Investigator hadn’t properly considered the complaint point around premium increases following the completion of the reinstatement works. O asked for an Ombudsman to consider the complaint, and I issued a provisional decision in which I said the following: “I want to start by acknowledging that I've intentionally summarised O’s complaint in a lot less detail than it’s been presented. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I consider to be the key points that I need to think about in order to reach a fair and reasonable conclusion. This reflects the informal nature of this Service and our key function; to resolve disputes quickly, and with minimum formality. However, I want to assure both parties I’ve read and considered everything provided. I also need to explain what I can and can’t consider as part of this complaint, given Mr E’s submissions around eligibility of complainants. The policy with Ecclesiastical was taken out in the name of O as a management company. O is therefore the named policyholder and an eligible complainant in respect of matters arising from the handling of the claim under that policy. But while I am therefore able to consider the complaint points that affect O, as part of this decision, it’s not always appropriate to do so. This Service’s powers to consider complaints are set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”) and in rules, known as the Dispute Resolution Rules (“DISP”) written by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) in accordance with the powers it derives from FSMA. The DISP rules also set out what complaints this Service should and shouldn’t look at. One of those rules says an Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint without considering its merits in certain circumstances. In particular, DISP 3.3.4R provides that this may apply where: • The complaint involves (or may involve) more than one eligible complainant; and • It has been referred without the consent of the other complainants; and the Ombudsman considers that it would be inappropriate to deal with the complaint without that consent, or • there are other compelling reasons why it is inappropriate for the complaint to be dealt with by this Service.

-- 2 of 5 --

The policy with Ecclesiastical was taken out in the name of O as a management company. Mr E has brought the complaint in both his capacity as a director of O, and in his personal capacity as a leaseholder of Flat B. This is because, as a leaseholder, Mr E is a beneficiary of the insurance policy under DISP2.7.6(5) as a person “for whose benefit a contract of insurance was taken out”, and I have addressed the complaint points that affect him separately in another decision. The claim that O complains about was in relation to the works undertaken to Flat A as part of the reinstatement for flood damage. So, the leaseholder of Flat A is also a beneficiary under the policy and an eligible complainant to bring the complaint to this Service. But Mr E, on behalf of O, has brought that complaint points about the works to Flat A, not the leaseholder of Flat A directly, who is also a director of O. On the information currently available, I consider that the complaint involves more than one eligible complainant and there is the potential for a conflict of interest between the leaseholders in relation to the works undertaken and the financial consequences of the claim. In those circumstances, I consider it would be inappropriate for this Service to determine this complaint point around the works to Flat A without the consent and involvement of the leaseholder of Flat A. As such, I intend to dismiss this part of the complaint under DISP 3.3.4R and make no findings in relation to it. Works in common parts Mr E, on behalf of O, says works were carried out in common parts without proper notification and they were left in unsafe state. O also says that O was not kept properly updated about the progression of the claim. The claim evidence I've seen records that Ecclesiastical communicated with the leaseholder of Flat A during the claim process, particularly during 2021 when the claim was most active. And while Mr A has raised concerns around Ecclesiastical not communicating directly with O at times, I can see that they were in communication with the leaseholder of Flat A, who I note is also a director of O. So, I'm ultimately satisfied that Ecclesiastical’s communication was appropriate here, and the leaseholder of Flat A would have been able to provide any updates given to them as a director of O. In terms of the safety concerns in common parts that have been raised, Ecclesiastical's position is that they requested photographs and sought clarification from their contractor and concluded that the works had been carried out by qualified professional. I haven't been provided with any contrasting independent evidence which demonstrates the installation was unsafe or non-compliant with any specific regulations. And while I sincerely understand the concerns O has raised and I do not intend to diminish them, I'm not persuaded that the available evidence demonstrates that Ecclesiastical arranged reinstatement works in a way that fell below what I'd consider to be fair and reasonable. Finally, in relation to the premium impact O has raised, I should make it clear what this Service can and cannot consider. O has not raised a complaint against its new insurer about the price it has been charged. And it’s also not this Service’s role to dictate to an insurer what they should charge customers for a policy they provide. A wide range of factors are considered, and each insurer will have their own approach and appetite for taking on risk. This is a decision for them to make based on their established underwriting criteria. So, the price they charge, and the methods used to calculate premiums, are a commercial decision for them to make.

-- 3 of 5 --

I can see O’s complaint is that the increase it did experience is due to the claim costs Ecclesiastical recorded in settling the claim. O says that its renewal prices were significantly increased as a result of the claim from 2021, and it eventually secured a policy with a provider at a 31% increase from the 2020 price it had paid with Ecclesiastical. But in order for me to fairly conclude that the increase in premium was due to something Ecclesiastical did wrong, I would need to be persuaded that they unfairly increased the claim costs or otherwise incorrectly recorded how the claim was settled. While I appreciate O has maintained that the original claim reserve was much lower than the final settlement of the overall claim; on its own, this does not mean the new premium it has paid for cover with another provider is because Ecclesiastical acted unfairly. A range of factors with alternative providers of cover would be relevant here, and I’m satisfied a claim of this size has the potential to cause an increase in premiums in any event, and I have not seen any evidence which shows the premiums were increased due to something Ecclesiastical did wrong. I concluded that I did not intend to uphold the complaint and I invited both parties to provide a response. Ecclesiastical did not provide anything further for me to consider. Mr E, on behalf of O, provided a response and said Ecclesiastical had stopped updating O directly after November 2021 and instead only Flat A had received updates. O also maintained its safety concerns and said there were severed wires protruding from the trunking of the electrical cabinet where the consumer unit of Flat A had been removed. As both parties have now had the opportunity to provide a response to my provisional findings, I will set out my final decision below. 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. I’ve carefully considered O’s response to my provisional findings. But having done so, I have reached the same outcome I did previously. I’ll explain why. In respect of the claim that O complains about in relation to the works undertaken to Flat A, I remain satisfied that it would be inappropriate for this Service to determine this complaint point without the consent and involvement of the leaseholder of Flat A. So while I appreciate O has made further submissions around Flat A’s consumer unit, I do not consider it appropriate for me to make any findings in relation to them. I therefore dismiss this complaint point under DISP 3.3.4R. In respect of O’s comments that the works affected electrical installations located within common parts of the building, I maintain that I haven't been provided with any contrasting independent evidence which demonstrates the installation was unsafe or non-compliant with any specific regulations. So, I'm not persuaded that the available evidence demonstrates that Ecclesiastical arranged reinstatement works in a way that fell below what I'd consider to be fair and reasonable. I’ve also considered O’s further comments that Ecclesiastical stopped updating O directly and instead only communicated about the claim was the leaseholder of Flat A. The evidence shows that Ecclesiastical primarily corresponded with the leaseholder of Flat A during the claim. However, as I said in my provisional findings, they were also a director of O at the

-- 4 of 5 --

time. So, I remain satisfied that Ecclesiastical maintained communication with an appropriate representative connected to the policyholder. While I understand why O would have preferred to have received updates directly, I’m not persuaded this means Ecclesiastical’s approach fell below what I would consider to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances; particularly given the claim related to damage within Flat A and was being progressed by that leaseholder. Finally, in relation to O’s complaint around the premiums charged, I haven’t been provided with any further information to consider, so I maintain my previous findings that I have not seen any evidence which shows the premiums were increased due to something Ecclesiastical did wrong. My final decision For the reasons I have given above, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask O to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Stephen Howard Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --