Some home insurers still accepting fewer than half of customer claims, Which? finds
Some home insurers are still accepting fewer than half of claims, leaving customers to endure nightmare ordeals, Which? has found.
The consumer champion’s analysis of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) latest general insurance value measures has found that three firms - esure, Lloyds Banking and Rentokil - each have claims acceptance rates of 45-50 per cent for buildings only cover.
Rentokil told Which? that it is not a general insurer and offers specialist property insurance products covering woodworm, wood rot and rising damp problems.
Concerningly, our analysis showed 15-20 per cent of all claims esure received for their buildings only cover resulted in a complaint. For Lloyds, this figure was 10-15 per cent.
Which? found three firms - EUI, Integra Solutions and Intact Insurance (formerly Royal & Sun Alliance) - accepted between 50-55 per cent of claims for buildings only cover. AA, esure, Lemonade and Lloyds Bank accepted just 55-60 per cent of claims on combined buildings and contents policies. For AA, esure and Lloyds, 10-15 per cent of claims these firms received regarding combined buildings and contents cover resulted in a complaint. For Lemonade, this figure was 5-10 per cent, according to FCA data. Lemonade says the true figure is closer to 0-5 per cent and as a new entrant to the market, the published figures are based on a comparatively small number of claims.
Claims acceptance rates across the home insurance sector have remained stubbornly low. For buildings only cover, less than two in three (63.2%) claims were accepted. In the year before, this figure was 63 per cent.
Last year, the FCA said that it publishes these claims statistics to provide ‘firms, market commentators and organisations such as consumer groups with common indicators of value across a range of general insurance products’.
Low claims acceptance rates in the home insurance sector were part of the reason Which? used its legal powers last month to submit a super-complaint to the FCA. In the weeks since submission, hundreds of people have expressed their support for Which?’s work, with people who have endured nightmare treatment when making a claim eager to share their experience.
One of these people is Par Dhonsi, from Northamptonshire, whose house had an internal leak in August last year. After months of checks, the insurer’s loss adjuster confirmed the leak and recommended the property needed drying, restoration, stripping out and reinstatement. A schedule of works review was requested and it was recommended that Par and his family would require alternative accommodation for 6-12 months. Black mould grew as a result of the leak, which caused some of Par’s family members to spend the night in A&E.
However, Par claims that he received contradictory information from the loss adjuster used by his insurer, Aviva, over the extent of the damage and therefore whether alternative accommodation was required, as well as whether repair works would take place or a cash settlement would be offered. Par believes that alternative accommodation that Aviva offered so far has been ''inadequate and unacceptable" given the need for a like-for-like property, as stated in his policy. Par is also concerned at how well the loss adjuster used by Aviva has managed his claim, including unexplained delays and poor communication. Par states that there are a multitude of repairs missing from the Scope of Work produced by the loss adjuster, which he states is "deplorably insufficient" and as a consequence generated a "woefully inadequate" cash settlement which due to the terms of his policy, he was required to accept and did not take into account a serious health and safety hazard of electric and water within his home.
Par believes Aviva bears ultimate responsibility for how swiftly the case is handled and that the extent of delays, mismanagement and distress caused to him and his family, means he wants Aviva to take control of his case. Aviva told Which? it ‘regrets the inconvenience and distress experienced by Mr Dhonsi and his family’ and recognised that ‘further dialogue’ with Par before offering him a cash settlement ‘would have been preferable’.
Par has so far raised two complaints with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and as a consequence, the loss adjuster has issued an unagreed settlement and closed the file. The loss adjuster indicated it had closed Par’s file pending the Ombudsman's findings, despite the current concerns, including serious health & safety issues, not forming part of the original complaints to the FOS.
In its review into claims handling, published in June this year, the FCA said it was concerned about how well claims were dealt with when outsourced to third parties, and ‘sometimes saw a lack of distinct insurer governance or oversight structures’. In the review, the regulator reminded insurers that use third-party arrangements of their responsibility for overseeing the claims handling arrangements.
The FCA’s general insurance value measures data showed that in 2024, 24 firms accepted fewer than three quarters of combined home insurance claims.
Which? believes that this is further evidence as to why the home insurance market is simply not working for customers. The consumer champion wants the FCA to get a grip of the market and get tough with firms that continue to fall short of the required standard.
Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:
“The home insurance market is currently failing to meet customer needs and require urgent regulatory action.
“With claims acceptance rates across the sector still stubbornly low, many customers are forced to endure ordeals with their insurer that can become far more stressful than the original event they are claiming for.
“It’s time for the regulator to get tough with firms failing consumers, sending a clear message that poor performance won’t be tolerated any longer.”
-ENDS -
Notes to Editors
On 23 September, Which? used its legal powers to submit a super-complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority over our concerns about the home and travel insurance markets. Poor claims acceptance rates in both of these markets was one reason for raising concerns with the regulator. The FCA has until 23 December to respond to the super-complaint.
FCA general insurance value measures 2024
FCA general insurance value measures 2023
FCA claims handling review - July 2025
The Financial Conduct Authority said that it has seen a ‘persistent trend’ of home insurance claims acceptance rates varying from around half with some providers to 95-100 per cent for others. It thinks there is a possibility that comparisons between individual firms are not always like-for-like, with some having different kinds of product and target market - and there have been some inconsistencies in how some firms have reported their claims rates.
Case studies
Par Dhonsi After experiencing an internal water leak in his house in August last year, Mr Dhonsi is dissatisfied with how his claim has been handled, both by his insurer Aviva and the loss adjusters.
Par claims that he received contradictory information from the loss adjuster used by his insurer, Aviva, over the extent of the damage and therefore whether alternative accommodation was required, as well as whether repair works would take place or a cash settlement would be offered.
Mr Dhonsi also believes that the loss adjuster's decision that alternative accommodation would not be required because the the property had a second, upstairs bathroom was misleading because his parents, who live with him, are elderly and unable to access the upstairs shower as it is in the bath as opposed to the downstairs walk-in shower. Indeed, alternative accommodations that have so far been suggested are, Mr Dhonsi believes, ''inadequate and unacceptable" given the need for a like-for-like property and notwithstanding the substantial cover included in the policy.
Mr Dhonsi believes that the loss adjuster, which is responsible for managing his claim on behalf of his insurers is inadequate; that Aviva bears ultimate responsibility for how swiftly the case is handled because Aviva uses a third-party loss adjuster; and that the extent of delays, mismanagement and distress caused to him and his family, means his case has been wrongly delegated. Mr Dhonsi states that there are a multitude of repairs missing from the Scope of Work produced by the Loss Adjusters which he states is "deplorably insufficient" and as a consequence generated a "woefully inadequate" cash settlement which he was required to accept under the terms of his policy and did not take into account a serious health & safety hazard of electric and water within his home.
Mr Dhonsi claims that Aviva has admitted to him in writing that the claim has been mishandled by the loss adjuster and would like Aviva's complaints team to look again at his case, and for the claim not to be handed back to the loss adjuster. Mr Dhonsi also alleges that he was told his claim would fall under major loss, but has now been told that is no longer the case. Par has so far raised two complaints with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and as a consequence, the loss adjuster has issued an unagreed settlement and closed the file. The loss adjuster has stated they are unwilling to address any additional issues until the Ombudsman's findings, despite the current concerns, including serious health & safety issues, not forming part of the original complaints to the FOS.
Right of replies
Commenting on Par Dhonsi’s case, a spokesperson for Aviva said: “We regret the inconvenience and distress experienced by Mr Dhonsi and his family. We take all customer concerns seriously and are committed to managing claims fairly and in line with policy terms and regulatory standards.
“Mr Dhonsi appointed a loss assessor to act on his behalf, which is distinct from the loss adjuster appointed by Aviva. Despite repeated requests, Mr Dhonsi's assessor did not provide any scope of works to progress settlement discussions, which contributed to delays.
“We acknowledge that alternative accommodation could have been offered earlier given the mobility needs of older family members. However, it is important to note that the policy does not provide “like for like” alternative accommodation cover. We offered several reasonable options, taking into account the needs of Mr Dhonsi’s family and in line with the policy, which were declined.
“To progress the claim, we approved a £64,000 cash settlement based on Aviva's loss adjuster's visits to the property and an independent surveyor’s scope of works, giving Mr Dhonsi flexibility for repairs. We recognise that further dialogue before reaching this stage may have been preferable.
“References to “major loss” appear to have originated from Mr Dhonsi's assessor rather than information from our records.
“We remain open to reviewing any new evidence from Mr Dhonsi or his loss assessor and will cooperate fully with the Financial Ombudsman Service."
A spokesman from AA Underwriting said: "The FCA's publication is clear that the data provided is not designed to help consumers make decisions when selecting their insurer.
"This is because insurers define claims acceptance differently, have different mixes of business, and this makes it difficult to get true like-for-like comparisons. For example, firms with higher average payouts will have lower acceptance rates, alongside more complaints, as they are typically dealing with large, complex claims such as flooding and subsidence.
"Similarly, the figures relate to underwriters rather than a broker or brand, which can be confusing for homeowners where a brand name could be underwritten by several providers.
"There is also a significant challenge within the home insurance industry regarding customer expectations, particularly around wear and tear claims. This is not covered, but we are concerned that consumers are making claims such as these, as well as general speculative applications, without checking their policy details first. The AA is working hard to ensure our customers know what is covered, and which claim types are valid before submissions can be made.
"The AA always takes feedback seriously and have made a series of changes to reduce complaints by helping inform customers about the claims process as well as improving the claims journey service for every customer."
A spokesperson for Admiral (EUI is part of Admiral Group) said: “Home insurance is designed to pay out for specific events such as storms, fire, floods, and subsidence and we pay out on all eligible claims.
“Our acceptance rate reflects that we log most customer contact, including general queries, as a claim. We also record claims for incidents which are out of scope of the policy or where customers do not have cover in place. We use all this information to improve our products, customer experience and to ensure clearer understanding of policy coverage.
“This approach provides us with a detailed view of customer claims experience but also lowers the overall acceptance rate. However, due to the fact that many of these are general queries, we are confident that our genuine rate of claims accepted is comparable to peers.“Our priority is to be there for customers when things go wrong and on the occasion that we don’t get things right first time, we work hard to quickly resolve issues and learn the lessons to ensure that we are able to meet our customers’ needs.”
A spokesperson for Intact Insurance said: “In 2023, we announced our decision to exit the UK personal insurance market. Since then, we’ve stopped writing new home insurance business, and from December this year, we’ll no longer be renewing existing policies.
“We are confident in how we govern and oversee our claims processes to deliver fair value. We operate well established controls across our portfolios, and our customer outcome monitoring helps to verify the quality of our products and the services we provide.”
A spokesperson for Integra Insurance Solutions said: “Integra Insurance Solutions take customer outcomes extremely seriously and always aim to pay claims wherever possible. In cases where a claim is not covered, this is due to clear policy exclusions that are set out and communicated transparently in the policy wording and customer documentation. We continually review our products and processes to ensure they deliver fair value and good outcomes for our policyholders.”
A spokesperson for Lemonade said: “The figures referenced in this release relate to 2024, the first months after our UK B&C product launched in July. At that early stage the book was very small and many claims were still open, so early snapshots are not representative of mature performance. In 2025, our developed acceptance rates are materially higher, at approximately 65 to 70 percent.
"We put customers at the center of everything we do. Our goal is a seamless, transparent experience where every customer feels genuinely cared for, with clear answers, quick help, and fair outcomes at every step. We are proud of the progress we’re seeing as the book matures and will keep raising the bar for our customers.”
A spokesperson for Lloyds Banking Group said: “We’re pleased to see the FCA’s guidance that home insurance acceptance data should be used with caution and that comparison between firms may not be like for like, noting the possibility of inconsistent reporting between firms and differing interpretations of their reporting guidelines.
“Our value measures data includes a range of customer enquiries, while other firms exclude these. Lloyds accepted 83% of claims in 2024 and our policy cover is strong relative to the market.
“We’re committed to working with the FCA, industry peers and consumer groups to improve the clarity of these metrics because a more consistent approach will help consumers make better-informed decisions.”
A spokesperson for Rentokil Insurance Limited said: “Rentokil Insurance has provided specialised property insurance cover for 50 years. Our expert assessors work to reassure our policyholders, helping them understand the root causes of property problems, and advising on solutions.”
Esure declined to comment.
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.