AXA Insurance UK Plc · DRN-6224110

The complaint The estate of Mr S complains about AXA Insurance UK Plc (“AXA”) for declining a claim for damage to a boundary wall from a neighbour’s fallen tree. They want AXA to settle the claim and reimburse the estate expenses incurred. What happened The late Mr S lived in a property which has a brick boundary wall around the garden. He insured his home with AXA. In his neighbour’s garden was a sizeable tree. In July 2023, part of the neighbour’s tree came down and damaged a portion of Mr S’s wall. He submitted a claim to AXA. AXA declined the claim on the basis the policy wording, in the section about damage from falling objects, excluded: • Damage to an aerial; • Damage if the falling object is normally kept within the Boundary, including trees; • Damage to gates, garden walls or fences; • The cost of removing any part of the fallen object if there has been no damage to the Home or Outbuildings. AXA considered the last two exclusions applied. Mr S was unhappy and contacted us. The case was reviewed by an Ombudsman, who issued a provisional decision. An extract from which, forms part of my decision below. “AXA’s policy wording detailed that outbuildings include “boundary or garden walls”. This is clear that, in AXA’s view, these are distinct things (as a wall can be one or the other) and both are outbuildings. The distinction would be that boundary walls exist on and mark the boundaries of the insured premises, whereas garden walls exist wholly within the boundaries of the insured property. A boundary wall may exist alongside a garden, but it remains a boundary wall, since AXA acknowledges that there is a distinction. Looking then at the exclusions, AXA’s policy wording excludes damage to garden walls from falling objects. It does not exclude damage to boundary walls, and so these should be included within cover. I agree that the last exclusion does not apply, as there clearly was damage to an outbuilding in this instance, the boundary wall. Consequently, any costs of removing the fallen tree ought to have been covered. I also do not accept that the third exclusion can be fairly applied to a boundary wall.

-- 1 of 3 --

Looking at the photographs provided by Mr S, I am satisfied that the wall which was damaged was along the boundary of the property, and delineated between his garden, and the garden where the tree fell from. This should be considered a boundary wall, and its existence in a garden does not make it a garden wall that can be excluded. To interpret this in any other way would mean that boundary walls which happened to be alongside a garden or outside space on a property were considered garden walls, and there would be no need for any distinction in the policy wording. I consequently think that the claim ought to have been settled, including the costs of tree removal and in repairing the boundary wall. If AXA considered there was negligence from the tree owner, it could subrogate against that person’s insurer. This is a matter for AXA, and should not affect Mr S’s claim. I therefore provisionally uphold Mr S’s complaint. I agree that AXA ought to pay to Mr S £200 compensation for wrongly declining the claim and think that it should now settle Mr S’s claim in line with the remaining policy terms. It appears that Mr S has already paid to remove the tree and repair the wall. AXA should reimburse Mr S’s costs for doing so and add interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date Mr S paid the expense up until the date of settlement.” Following the provisional decision, we were made aware that the tree had still not been removed or the wall repaired. The Ombudsman increased redress through a second provisional decision, which included increasing the compensation to £1,000 and AXA reimbursing legal costs. She felt this was fair due to the impact and that Mr S had been left with no option but to initiate legal proceedings. Mr S accepted the provisional findings set out. Our Service was then made aware Mr S had sadly passed away. Due to the time needed to receive the necessary documentation, the complaint was placed on hold. Now the necessary documentation is in order the complaint has been passed to me to consider further. We asked AXA for a response to my colleague’s revised provisional decision. They responded to say that whilst they were in agreement with most of the provisional findings, they felt £350 was a more appropriate figure of compensation. They also said they wanted to review any legal costs before agreeing to reimburse them. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I agree with the outcome and reasoning set out previously. The claim was unfairly declined, and the estate should be compensated for the impact this had on Mr S. AXA (and the estate of Mr S) accept most of the redress my colleague set out. I will therefore focus my decision on the two points that remain in contention. AXA should reimburse legal costs that Mr S suffered in taking action against his neighbour to resolve matters. This was because he took this action as he felt he had no option due to the claim being declined unfairly. AXA haven’t refused this but have asked that they are able to review the legal costs before reimbursing them. I think this is fair. They will be able to review the evidenced costs and determine that they are reasonable and in regard to action against

-- 2 of 3 --

the neighbour specific to the subject matter of this complaint. AXA didn’t agree with the compensation my colleague intended to award, but I think £1,000 is fair. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience this matter had on Mr S, who was without most of his garden for approximately two years, and caused substantial distress and inconvenience. AXA have pointed to the area in question being fenced off. Whilst this made it safe, he was still without a large portion of his garden for a considerable amount of time and was left with no option but to commence legal proceedings, which would have been inconvenient and more likely than not uncomfortable. In summary, I uphold this complaint because I find AXA unfairly declined the late Mr S’s claim, and I find the redress previously proposed by my colleague to be a fair and reasonable resolution in all the circumstances. Putting things right To put things right, AXA Insurance UK Plc should: • Arrange removal of the tree in the late Mr S’s garden immediately; • Accept and settle the claim for damage in line with the policy terms; • Reimburse the estate of Mr S for all reasonable costs incurred in relation to the tree damage, upon evidence and a breakdown. This should include any reasonable and relevant legal action costs commenced against the neighbour. • Add interest to all sums to be reimbursed at a rate of 8% per annum; and • Pay £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. My final decision I uphold this complaint and require AXA Insurance UK Plc to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask the estate of Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Yoni Smith Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --