Home insurance customers affected by extreme weather still left exposed by insurers, Which? warns

Insurers seem to be shirking their responsibilities for paying out claims and treating customers fairly when their houses suffer damage due to storms and other extreme weather events, Which? is warning.

The consumer champion believes that home insurance customers are still being left in the lurch should their properties be damaged by increasingly intense weather events. Since October, there have been six named storms, with strong rain and high winds causing damage to many properties across the country. Insurers dragging their feet over how the damage to properties was caused, despite claimants providing clear evidence to the contrary, can lead to lengthy disputes just to get the rebuilding work done or the money owed. 

Which? is now calling for the Financial Conduct Authority to get tough with insurers that are still dragging their feet when customers make claims for storm and flood damage, leaving customers out of pocket and with damaged homes.

Leanne Renwick’s property in Haltwhistle, Northumberland was badly damaged by strong winds by Storm Isha in January 2024. Leanne rang her insurer Policy Expert to explain what had happened. Given the ongoing poor weather, a roofing company could not get to her before more rain poured through, damaging much of the extension. 

Leanne did all the right things, documenting the evidence of damage with photos and videos and referencing that the Met Office had named the storm, which reached wind speeds of 99mph in some areas of Northumberland. She was understandably shocked when she was told by a surveyor hired by Policy Expert that the damage to her roof had been caused by wear and tear and she was not eligible to claim. This was despite the local roofing company claiming that the damage they saw was caused by the storm and was consistent with the damage they had seen at other properties in the area. 

Despite providing proof of the roof being fixed less than a decade ago, Policy Expert still declined her claim for the damage. Leanne took her claim to the Financial Ombudsman Service.Leanne estimated that she was owed around £50,000 for the damage and that her policy said she would be entitled to like for like cover, as per her policy. By this time, Policy Expert had offered a series of payments, including £1,00, £24,000 and £26,000, based on the information Leanne submitted. Believing that this underestimated the work required, Leanne understandably refused both offers.

Leanne, who by this stage claims her mental health was suffering and developed heart palpitations that can be triggered by stress, felt she had to go back to the various traders she had used for the extension to get quotes to prove her estimated repayments were correct. 

The case was finally resolved in November 2025 and Leanne was paid in full, nearly two years after the storm ripped the roof off her house. 

Policy Expert, which launched in 2011, boasts over one million customers across home, car and pet insurance. It states its goal is ‘to offer insurance that our customers could be confident in – insurance that was accessible and easy to understand.’ 

A spokesperson for Policy Expert told Which? that “while the initial surveyor assessment suggested wear and tear, the claim was then accepted following additional checks. We worked with Ms Renwick to settle her individual buildings and contents claims in line with her chosen contractors, and each was paid in full.”

Which? is concerned with how many firms are approaching cover for storms and handling claims.

This is not the first time that Which? has raised concerns. Last year, Which? found that of the 133 policy documents from 67 providers, one in three policies contain flood definitions and one in five policies contain storm definitions that contradict what we found to be most consumers’ common sense expectations and industry guidance. The ABI had been tasked by the FCA following its claims handling review in July last year to work with its members to improve the clarity of storm definitions in their policies.

In November, the ABI added a caveat to its storms guidance for firms, emphasising theneed for flexibility in handling storm claims. The ABI’s definition of a storm remains in place.The FCA had also found last July that some firms may be choosing cash settlements ‘primarily to contain costs without considering customers’ best interests.'

Which? is concerned that the insurance industry is not changing its practices on storm claims and cash settlements quickly enough to properly protect consumers should the worst happen. 

Which? raised its serious concerns about the home and travel insurance markets in a super-complaint submitted to the FCA last September. In December, the regulator agreed to undertake a range of additional and expanded work to provide home and travel insurance customers with a better experience. This includes, the FCA asking the ABI to go further, asking it to ‘review and enhance cash settlement best practice guidance to members, extending existing flood claims best practice to other major perils that cause significant damage to the property, including storms’. 

However, Which? believes that, in the middle of storm season, more urgent action is needed by the regulator to force meaningful change from the insurance industry where firms are not meeting their obligations to customers. 

Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:

“Storms and floods can cause serious damage to people’s homes and when that happens, policyholders want to know that their insurer is working to handle the claim fairly and quickly, without causing unnecessary stress.

“What they don’t expect across the insurance industry is for firms to drag their feet, denying the cause and extent of the damage, and then lowballing customers with derisory cash settlements. 

“The FCA must get a grip of this issue and make sure firms are treating their customers fairly, so when the worst happens, insurance does what it’s there to do.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors 

The claim after the storm - Which? report

Insurance trade body, the Association of British Insurers (ABI), paid out a record £6.1 billion in property insurance claims in 2025 - a figure it says was driven heavily by adverse weather conditions. Payouts for weather-related claims in 2025 were £1.2 billion - £142 million, or 14 per cent, more than in 2024. ABI - Adverse weather pushes property insurance payouts to £6.1 billion in 2025

Right of replies

A spokesperson for Policy Expert said: “While the initial surveyor assessment suggested wear and tear, the claim was then accepted following additional checks. We worked with Ms Renwick to settle her individual buildings and contents claims in line with her chosen contractors, and each was paid in full. Alternative accommodation was also provided while repairs were undertaken. Policy Expert is committed to providing the highest level of service to all customers, and we are proud of our ‘Excellent’ Trustpilot rating from over 90,000 reviews.”

About Which? 

Which? is the UK’s consumer champion, empowering people to make confident choices and demand better. Through our research, investigations and product testing, we provide trusted insight and expert recommendations on the issues that matter most to consumers.

Fiercely independent, we put people over profit - shining a light on unfair practices, influencing policy and holding businesses to account to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone.

The information in this press release is for editorial use by journalists and media outlets only. Any business seeking to reproduce information in this release should contact the Which? Endorsement Scheme team at endorsementscheme@which.co.uk.