Disagreements with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) can be complicated and protracted, but it is vital to comply with deadlines at every stage of the process. In a recent case, a limited liability partnership (LLP) failed to convince the Upper Tribunal (UT)...
In February 2023 Claire Massey suffered a devasting fire at her home as a result of a dehumidifier catching fire. Ms Massey’s insurers, Policy Expert who are underwritten by Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd, paid for her and her two children to stay in temporary accommodation whilst the claim was passed to Trinity Claims Management who sent cleaners to the damaged home.
Ms Massey complained to her insurers about the standard of work of the cleaners. However, Ms Massey was accused by her insurer of delay tactics as a new date for cleaning to start could not be agreed.
A month after the fire Ms Massey’s insurers stopped paying for alternative accommodation for her and her two children.
In May 2023, Ms Massey complained to FOS about the pause in temporary accommodation payments. Ms Massey said her mortgage, rent and council tax payments for her fire-damaged home and temporary accommodation had been costing her more than £5,000 a month and she was forced to live away from her children for months.
FOS upheld Ms Massey’s complaint and ordered her insurers to pay compensation, rental accommodation and resolve the cleaning issues.
However, five months later her insurers questioned why, when Ms Massey took out the policy, she had answered ‘no’ to a question about using her home as a rental business, despite Ms Massey listing rooms on Airbnb and other platforms in her self-contained annex.
Ms Massey said she had used the website Compare the Market, and she was never asked specific questions whether the house was to be used as a rental business or guest house.
In December 2023, Policy Expert cancelled Ms Massey’s insurance, claiming she had not disclosed the business use of her home. Again, Ms Massey complained to FOS who decided that although she had made a ‘misrepresentation’, the questions which were asked on Compare the Market were not the same questions Policy Expert wanted answers to.
FOS concluded that Policy Expert needed to reinstate the policy. However, the insurers challenged the FOS decision.
On 8 July 2024, FOS gave their final ruling and stated although “it’s more likely than not that the annex was used for business purposes”, after Ms Massey bought the policy, she had the annex insured separately with a different company.
FOS ultimately decided that Policy Expert were not entitled to cancel Ms Massey’s policy. Trinity Claims accepted the decision and reinstated Ms Massey’s policy. Trinity Claims stated, “We will address the balance of Ms Massey’s claim in accordance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations and in line with our claims process”.
How we can help
Our experienced commercial litigation team can assist in writing formal letters of complaint to insurance companies, making complaints to FOS, and enforcing FOS decisions through the courts.
For a free no obligation discussion, please contact us on 0121 355 0011 to see how we may be able to help you.
Comments