When an insurance claim becomes a war of attrition

This all started with something that looked harmless enough.

A small, hairline crack on the corner of our house in late July 2023.

We noticed it a few days before plumbers were due to arrive to install an upstairs bathroom, so we didn’t panic. Old houses move. Cracks happen. At that point, it didn’t feel like the start of a major insurance claim.

Once the plumbers began digging, everything changed. 

As they excavated near the corner of the house, they found ground that was saturated with moisture beneath the patio. They slowed things right down and quickly discovered the real issue. A clay soil pipe had cracked and collapsed, leaking waste water into the ground for some time. The soil underneath was so compromised they could push a six-foot pole straight down into it.

Their view was simple, logical, and based on many years of experience, the collapsed old pipe had caused ground movement. That movement had undermined the corner of the house, and that explained the crack in the brickwork.

 

Doing the right thing, straight away

As soon as this came to light, my wife contacted our insurer, Policy Expert, and a claim was opened. Trinity Claims were appointed to handle it.

Because this was our only bathroom and toilet at the time, the plumbers carried out a temporary emergency fix so we could still live in the house. Nothing fancy. Just enough to keep things usable.

A surveyor visited on 2 August ... he was on site for around five minutes, no more and barely looked at the hole at the corner of the property.

A week later, after chasing Trinity for an update, we were told the repairs fell under the £1,000 excess for ground movement and as the whole fix would likely cost about the same as the excess, the claim would be withdrawn and closed.

That wording matters. Under the policy, ground movement is the only reason that excess applies. So at that point, we reasonably took it that Trinity accepted ground movement had occurred.

 

Then came the delays, and the contradictions

We challenged the decision. A five-minute inspection did not feel like a proper investigation.

The claim was reopened. We supplied photos, videos, and a paid-for report from the plumbers. Trinity never contacted the plumbers themselves.

Weeks passed. Then months.

All the while, there was still a hole at the corner of our house, open to the weather, letting water in every time it rained. We chased repeatedly. Emails. Messages. Promises.

At one point we were told a regional surveyor would attend.

They never did.

Then, in October, Trinity changed their position completely.

Now it wasn’t subsidence. Now the damage was supposedly caused by excavation by the plummers that we had asked to complete our bathroom works. Now the cracked pipe was blamed on gradual deterioration, which they said was excluded under the policy.

That directly contradicted their earlier stance about ground movement and excess. It felt less like a conclusion based on evidence, and more like a reason to walk away and not pay us a penny!

 

Why we took it further

By this point, it was clear we were not going to get a fair outcome from Trinity Claims just by being patient.

If we had paid for the work ourselves, we would have been looking at thousands of pounds. Pipe replacement. Structural repairs. Rebuilding brickwork. Making the patio good again.

We had paid our premiums. We had reported the issue immediately. We had cooperated fully.

So we escalated the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

This is the bit many people don’t realise.

Going to the Ombudsman is completely free for you to use. It costs you nothing.

For the insurance company, it’s very different. They are charged a case fee, usually around £650, just for the Ombudsman to investigate, regardless of whether they win or lose. That alone often changes the tone of things.

 

The outcome Trinity didn’t want

Progress was still slow, but it finally happened.

Trinity were required to put everything back to how it was before the damage.

The collapsed pipework was replaced. The corner of the house was rebuilt properly. The patio was made good.

On top of that, they were also required to pay us modest compensation of £200 for the way the claim had been handled.

That money wasn’t the point. The principle was.

They had originally wanted nothing to do with the claim. In the end, it cost them thousands, and because they had to do a better job of the repairs than we probably could have done, it cost them many times more.

 

Why we’re sharing this

This blog isn’t about being angry, or anti-insurance, or picking fights for the sake of it.

Claims companies are businesses. Their job is to protect money (I'm convinced that if we had walked away, the claims company would have been high fiving each other and sharing the bonus we would have helped them get!).

But insurance is still a contract. If the policy covers the damage, they have to honour it.

If the law or the wording of the policy is on your side, you are allowed to push back. You are allowed to challenge poor investigations. You are allowed to escalate when things stall. You are allowed to involve the Ombudsman.

Most importantly, you don’t have to give up just because the process feels stacked against you.

That’s why I write these posts. Real situations. Plain English. No scare tactics.

Just proof that ordinary people can hold companies to account, and win, when they are in the right.