RegulationOct 24 2013

Fos slammed over ‘light touch’ claim decision

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by

Adrian McCall, a Cheshire-based structural engineer, claimed the Fos failed to protect his family over a complaint against Aviva when his house was hit by a 30-tonne earth mover in February 2005.

He said the digger, employed by a property developer on land adjoining his property, continued to work in the days following the incident, with damage from the collision and additional work undertaken to divert a stream and remove a retaining wall contributing to significant damage to his property and subsidence, which left it uninhabitable.

When Mr McCall’s wife made a claim to the family’s insurer Aviva, he claimed it had been ignored initially as the claim had been mis-filed, leaving them to pursue the developer themselves.

The developer subsequently went out of business, while the McCall family’s claim was eventually repudiated by Aviva, with a loss adjuster indicating there was no movement within the property, despite more than a tonne of rubble falling into the house.

When the claim was brought to the Fos, with photographic evidence, it was rejected – a decision that Mr McCall alleged demonstrated the service’s “light touch” when dealing with large insurers.

He said: “Our home is falling down, and will fall down sooner rather than later. We have had to pay two mortgages without any assistance, leaving us on the brink of bankruptcy.

“The Fos has refused to investigate Aviva for maladministration, which the insurer admitted to us in addition to a host of other issues, and is happy to defend insurers, never investigating the more severe issues of their conduct.”

Right to reply

A spokesman for the Ombudsman said it could not comment on individual cases, however, a copy of the claim response, seen by Financial Adviser, suggested that the Ombudsman was only obliged to consider the crux of a complaint, and suggested that specific allegations, including negligence, mental stress and breach of FSA principles should be taken to a court instead.

A spokesman for Aviva also said it could not comment on individual cases, with each insurance claim judged on its individual merits.