Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Public Limited Company · DRN-6164166

The complaint Mr E complains about the way Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Public Limited Company (‘Ecclesiastical’) handled a claim made on a property insurance policy he is a beneficiary under. What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so the following is a summary of key events only. Mr E owns a leasehold flat (“Flat B”) in a block which is covered by a property insurance policy with Ecclesiastical. Mr E is a director of the management company (“O”) set up to run the block of flats. 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 extensive electrical works and a claim for loss of rent. In February 2025, Mr E, on behalf of 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. Mr E remained dissatisfied with the response to the complaint – so, he 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 did not agree with the Investigator’s conclusions. In relation to the points the Investigator said she couldn’t consider, Mr E said that: • The insurance policy with Ecclesiastical was in the name of O, and works on Flat A

-- 1 of 4 --

were on behalf of O. • As a director of O, Mr E paid a quarter share of cost of the insurance 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. In relation to the points the Investigator had issued findings on, Mr E said: • 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 any issues of overheating the existing cables but this was not the case. He said Ecclesiastical’s works had compromised the electrical safety of his flat. • 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. Mr E asked for an Ombudsman to consider the complaint – so, it’s 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. I want to start by acknowledging that I've intentionally summarised Mr E’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, and I have considered the complaint points that affect O as part of a separate decision. But Mr E brings the complaint in both his capacity as a director of O, and also in his personal capacity as a leaseholder of Flat B. And while he is not a named policyholder, he is an eligible complainant under this Service’s rules, as a person “for whose benefit a contract of insurance was taken out”, under DISP 2.7.6(5). That means Mr E, as the leaseholder of Flat B is able to raise a complaint in relation to matters affecting his own leasehold interest. However, this does not mean that every aspect complained about falls within my remit to determine in this complaint. So, in relation to the complaint points that are relevant to Mr E as a beneficiary under the policy, I will set out my findings in respect of these below.

-- 2 of 4 --

The claim from 2021 concerned flood damage to Flat A which was concluded in 2022. As Mr E is not the owner of that property and the claim was not to reinstate his flat, I am unable to determine whether the electrical works undertaken within Flat A were required as that is a matter between Ecclesiastical and the leaseholder of Flat A. I appreciate Mr E may disagree with this approach, but as the Investigator has previously set out, he is an eligible complainant in relation to matters that specifically affect his own property under the policy. In respect of the main complaint points Mr E has brought as a leaseholder and beneficiary of the policy, the crux of Mr E’s complaint here is that he says Ecclesiastical’s contractors committed a trespass when they installed insulation and wiring between the ceiling joists of Flat A without his permission. I should make it clear from the outset that my role is not to determine matters of property law disputes between leaseholders. Questions of trespass or lease interpretation are matters for a court or tribunal. That means my role here is limited to deciding whether I’m satisfied Ecclesiastical acted fairly and reasonably when arranging reinstatement works under the policy. The evidence I’ve seen shows that the works were undertaken to Flat A following a significant flood and ecclesiastical ranged reinstatement through their appointed contractors which included electrical works and the installation of insulation. Missed a says he was not contacted for permission before installation was installed between the joists which he says form part of his demised lease. Ecclesiastical's position is that the works were carried out by qualified contractors and where necessary as part of reinstatement and compliance with building regulations. Ultimately, the evidence I’ve seen shows the works were carried out in the context of reinstating insured damage in Flat A and I don't consider it unusual for reinstatement in a block policy context to involve works that physically affect adjoining voids. If Mr considers the works amount to a trespass or breach of lease, that is something he would need to pursue through the appropriate legal channels. But I'm not persuaded the available evidence demonstrates that Ecclesiastical acted unfairly or unreasonably by arranging reinstatement works in the way they did. Mr E has also provided detailed submissions suggesting the installation of insulation between the joists of his flooring has altered the installation conditions of his electrical cabling, which he says means the existing ring circuit may no longer be appropriately rated. I appreciate Mr E’s strength of feeling over his concerns, and I’ve considered these submissions carefully. However, I’m ultimately not persuaded that the available evidence demonstrates that the works carried out have meant to the electrical installation within his flat is unsafe or non- compliant. The points raised by Mr E are based on his own analysis and assumptions about how the cabling is installed and the extent to which insulation surrounds it. And it's important to highlight that I haven't seen any independent expert evidence, such as an updated electrical inspection report or an independent electrician's opinion, confirming that the installation is defective or requires remedial work. And in the absence of such evidence, I can't reasonably conclude that Ecclesiastical acted unfairly in relying on their contractor’s professional advice when completing the reinstatement works. Finally, I’ve considered Mr E’s submissions around the claim’s effect on the premiums he is required to pay a quarter share of for the block. I can see Mr E has explained that several renewal quotes were significantly higher than the 2020 policy price, and it took some time to find a more comparable level of cover, however this was still at a 31% increase from the 2020 price it had paid with Ecclesiastical. However, I’m satisfied a claim of this size has the

-- 3 of 4 --

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. My final decision For the reasons I have set out 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 Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Stephen Howard Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --