OPINION: Bad weather damaged our home, but our claim was rejected. What can we do?

Originally published in The i Paper 10 April 2025. Permission to publish all opinion pieces authored by Rocio Concha, sought and granted on 3 July 2025.

When is a storm a storm and a flood a flood? These aren’t riddles, but serious questions - the answers to which can have huge consequences for insurance customers whose properties have been damaged by these events. 

Yet when Which? looked into this issue in more detail, analysing over 130 policies sold by nearly 70 firms, we found concerning signs that not all insurers’ set definitions for these weather events were what we would describe as fair. 

Insurers with what we view as potentially unfair definitions of floods and storms - and in some cases, both - weren’t just niche operators, but some of the largest players in the market. Household names like Aviva, Axa, John Lewis, Nationwide and Tesco all had potentially unfair definitions of one or both events. Many of these insurers told Which? they believe their definitions of these events are fair and in line with guidance from external bodies, including the Flood Re scheme, a joint initiative between the government and insurers. 

More generally, we know that, in the past, insurers have used similar definitions to decline claims for property damage, leaving people facing an uphill battle to receive a payout. This just prolongs the time it takes to have what can be a stressful ordeal sorted. 

Think, for instance, of claims rejected on the basis that while your house was flooded, the water entered too slowly to constitute a flood. So, while it’s unfortunate your house is now damaged and the associated costs to repair it will be significant, you aren’t covered and so it’s tough luck.

Our tests for fairness were based on several factors, including evidence in policies of where these decisions have caused consumers harm in the past; expert, industry regulatory and ombudsman guidance on how they define these weather events; and a nationally representative survey to see how members of the public would define them and what they would expect insurers’ policies to cover should these events occur to their property. 

When we surveyed over 1,300 UK adults with buildings insurance, we found that two thirds of them define a flood as an event where water enters and builds up in a home, regardless of speed. Three-fifths defined a storm as a combination of extreme weather conditions, any of which - torrential rain, say - could occur alone. 

Consumers’ expectations matter here not just because they’re common sense, but because they’re backed up by industry guidance. The Association of British Insurers, the country’s largest insurance trade body, the Financial Ombudsman Service, a mediator between customers and firms, and the Flood Re scheme, all have definitions that are broadly in line with consumers’ views. 

That means it’s time for firms to stop making such heavy weather of their Ts and Cs. Encouragingly, since releasing our research, Tesco has already pledged to review how it defines a flood. 

More, however, needs to be done. Which? wants the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate whether all insurers are evidencing how they have met consumers’ reasonable expectations of definitions, and addressing any issues they may identify with their products. 

In addition, the FCA should make clear to firms that using the ABI and Flood Re definitions of storms and floods is one way for them to ensure they are currently meeting their regulatory requirements under the Consumer Duty. 

That way, customers whose properties experience damage shouldn’t be left in the lurch because the ‘wrong kind of weather’ happened.