Insurance Cash Settlement Too Low? How to Check the Figure
Insurers cash settle at discounted network rates, not market rates. UK home claims now average over £7,000. Reconcile the offer against your builder's quote.
Winter is the season for this. Storm damage claims cluster from October onwards, frozen and burst pipes peak in January, and enough of the resulting claims are settled in cash rather than by the insurer sending its own builder for the FCA to have made cash settlement a supervisory priority. You end up holding two documents: the loss adjuster's scope of works with a figure at the bottom, and a quote from your own builder that is meaningfully higher. Nobody explains why.
Why is your insurance cash settlement lower than your builder's quote?
Because the two figures are built from different rates. An insurer's cash settlement is normally calculated on the pre-agreed rates it pays its own repair network, and the Financial Conduct Authority put the problem in writing in its July 2025 review of home and travel claims handling: there are "legal risks where cash settlement amounts reflect discounted rates from a firm's suppliers and contractors that will not be available to customers". Your builder prices at the market rate, with their own overheads, and usually with VAT on top. Some gap is expected, because network rates are pre-agreed and below market price by design, and a gap on its own is not evidence of unfair treatment. A gap you cannot account for line by line is the one to challenge.
That review was not a one-off observation. In December 2025 the FCA, responding to Which?'s super-complaint, asked 13 of the 15 home insurers in its sample, representing more than half the home insurance market, to go back and review how they had handled storm claims and cash settlements and work out whether they had caused customers harm. Cash settlements are under active regulatory scrutiny right now, which is worth knowing when you write your complaint letter.
What the policy actually lets the insurer do
Most home insurance policies contain a clause close to this: we will decide whether to repair, replace, pay cash or reinstate the damaged part of the building. The choice is the insurer's, not yours. The Financial Ombudsman Service accepts that, with one qualification: the insurer is expected to take your particular circumstances into account rather than reaching for cash automatically. On a large structural claim, for example, cash settling and leaving a homeowner to project manage extensive works may not be a fair choice.
The commonly repeated line that you always have the right to use your own builder is not accurate. What is accurate is that the ombudsman would usually expect an insurer to agree to you using your own builder. But agreeing to it and paying your builder's price are two different things. Policy wording routinely says the insurer will not pay more than the amount it would have paid its own supplier. That limit bites when the insurer has offered you a repair through its own network and you turn it down in favour of your own builder: the ombudsman accepts that you are then owed only the insurer's cost, because you were given the chance to be indemnified and declined it. It does not work in reverse. Where the insurer itself elects to cash settle, the ombudsman's guidance to firms is explicit that a figure pegged to the insurer's own discounted cost is not an indemnity at all: "if the cash offer reflects the cost to you, that won't indemnify the customer. This is because they won't be able to get the repairs done for that amount. So if you're choosing to settle by cash, we expect you to take into account the cost to the consumer." So establish who chose cash before you argue about rates. You can nearly always appoint your own firm. Whether you are paid what that firm charges depends on which of those two routes you are on.
The loss adjuster who visits your house is not neutral, and the law is explicit about why. Assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance is a regulated activity under article 39A of the Regulated Activities Order. Article 39B then carves out loss adjusting and claims management carried on for the insurer. The adjuster is exempt because they are acting for the insurer. Read their scope of works as the insurer's opening position, not as an independent valuation.
There is a real, published example of how far the rates can drift. In ombudsman decision DRN-6459887, issued in 2026, Liverpool Victoria cash settled a kitchen reinstatement at £5,361.49 excluding VAT. Its own scope of works from the inspection valued the same kitchen works at £7,778.55 excluding VAT, and its approved supplier explained that when offering a cash settlement it applied "the household rate, which is lower than the rate paid by insurers for us to complete the works directly". The ombudsman found nothing in the policy allowing a figure below the insurer rate and directed the settlement up to £7,778.55, plus 8% simple interest on the difference and £350 compensation. If your offer looks thin, the first question is not whether it matches your builder. It is whether it even matches the insurer's own scope of works.
Where the gap comes from, line by line
Ask for the full scope of works with rates shown, not just the total. Then work through it against your builder's quote in this order.
| Line in the settlement | Why the insurer's number is lower | What to ask for |
|---|---|---|
| Labour and material rates | Priced on network schedule rates that are pre-agreed and below market price | The scope of works with rates visible, and confirmation the figure is the insurer rate not a lower household rate |
| VAT | Normally excluded from the offer and reimbursed later on production of a paid VAT invoice | Written confirmation of the VAT mechanism, then compare net figure to net figure |
| Scope of damage | The adjuster prices insured damage only, your builder prices a finished room | A list of anything your builder included that the adjuster excluded, with the reason for each exclusion |
| Making good and decoration | Often limited to the damaged area rather than the full elevation or room | The extent of redecoration allowed, in square metres or by room |
| Strip-out, drying and waste | Sometimes handled by a separate contractor on a separate instruction, so absent from the repair figure | Confirmation of who is paying for strip-out, drying, skips and reinstatement of floor coverings |
| Access | Scaffolding, tower hire and roof access are easy to leave out of a desk-based scope | The access allowance in cash, checked against real scaffolding costs |
| Preliminaries | A network contractor absorbs site management and welfare inside its rate, a small builder itemises them | Your builder's prelims broken out, so you are not comparing a bare rate to a fully loaded one |
| Betterment and excess | The insurer deducts for any upgrade on the pre-loss position, then deducts your policy excess | The betterment deduction stated separately with the reasoning, and the excess shown as its own line |
Two of those deserve care. Betterment is a legitimate principle, not a dodge: the policy restores what you had, not an improvement. But the ombudsman has said that where the improvement is the only way to get an effective and lasting repair, requiring it can still be the fair outcome, even though you end up with something better than you had. The other is the excess. It comes off the settlement, not off your builder's quote, so a like-for-like comparison has to add it back before the two numbers can be judged against each other.
The VAT trap, and why the usual grievance is wrong
You will read on loss assessor websites that insurers refuse to pay VAT and you therefore lose 20% straight away. That is not how it works, and repeating it will make your complaint weaker.
The ombudsman's position is that VAT is not part of the cost of the work, it is added to it, and a business that charges VAT hands it to HMRC. Until the work is actually done and invoiced, nobody knows how much VAT the claim will really generate. So the service usually thinks it is fair for an insurer to settle net of VAT and reimburse the VAT once you show you have paid it.
There is an important exception that is worth quoting at your insurer. Where you are clear about what you intend to do and how much VAT it will generate, for example because you hold a detailed estimate from a contractor that certainly charges VAT, the ombudsman is likely to say the VAT should be included in the settlement up front. If you have a signed, dated quote from a VAT-registered builder and you have committed to using them, set that out in writing and ask for the VAT to be included. Our guide to VAT on building work covers which rate should apply to the work itself.
What the numbers look like in 2026
These are the published Association of British Insurers averages. They are not a benchmark for your specific job, but they tell you what scale of claim is now ordinary, which matters when an adjuster implies your expectations are unreasonable.
| Measure | Latest ABI figure | Period |
|---|---|---|
| Average home insurance payout, all claim types | Above £7,000 for the first time | Q2 2026 |
| Average household claim | £6,340, a record, up 20% year on year | Q1 2026 |
| Average claim for flood, storm and burst pipe damage | £8,548, up 12% year on year | Q2 2026 |
| Average subsidence claim | £20,000, a record | Q2 2026 |
| Average storm damage payout | £2,450 | Full year 2025 |
| Average domestic flood payout | £30,000 | Full year 2025 |
| Total property claims paid | £6.1bn, a record | Full year 2025 |
Source: ABI property insurance trackers, February 2026, May 2026 and August 2026.
One seasonal correction, because it changes how you argue a claim. Escape of water is not purely a winter problem. Aviva's analysis of its own claims, published in July 2026, found a quarter of escape of water claims occur between July and September, with July the second busiest month after January. Frozen and burst pipes are the genuinely winter peaking subset. Storm damage is what drives the October to February surge. If your leak happened in August, the fact that it was not cold is not a reason for the claim to be treated as unusual.
How to reconcile the two documents
Get both onto the same basis before you argue about the total.
Start by putting your builder's quote into the same order as the adjuster's scope, room by room and element by element. Our method for comparing builder quotes works exactly the same way here, with the adjuster's scope standing in for the second builder. Anything that appears in one document and not the other is either a scope difference or an omission, and you need to know which.
Then strip VAT out of your builder's figure so you are comparing net to net, and add the excess back onto the settlement. Only after those two adjustments does the residual gap mean anything. In most claims that residual is the rate difference, and that is the part worth negotiating.
Check what your builder has actually specified. A quote that says "reinstate kitchen" is not comparable to a scope that lists 14 items, and an insurer is entitled to treat it as unproven. A quote should carry the same level of detail you would demand on any other job, which is covered in what a builder's quote should include. Watch for provisional sums on both sides, because an unresolved provisional sum in a scope of works is a figure nobody has committed to.
Finally, read the settlement letter for what it does not cover. Alternative accommodation, disturbance allowance, contents, and any uninsured work needed to make the insured repair last are separate heads of claim, and they are frequently settled separately or not raised at all.
Ask the insurer, in writing, for three things before you respond to the offer: the full scope of works with rates shown rather than a single total, confirmation that the figure is the rate it would have paid its own approved supplier for that scope, and a written statement of how VAT will be handled. Insurers are used to being asked for the total and rarely volunteer the breakdown. A request in writing also creates the paper trail you need if the complaint goes further.
What goes wrong
Accepting the offer before the scope is agreed. The number is a consequence of the scope. Argue about what is being repaired first, then about the rate. Once you have accepted a settlement in full and final terms, reopening it is much harder.
Comparing a gross figure to a net one. This produces a phantom 20% gap and destroys your credibility when you complain. Do the VAT and excess adjustments before you write to anyone.
Assuming the insurer's number is the insurer's own rate. It is not always. As the 2026 ombudsman case shows, some settlements are calculated on a lower household rate the contractor would charge a private customer. Ask directly whether the figure is the rate the insurer would have paid its own supplier for the same scope.
Letting the builder start on an unagreed figure. Once your builder is on site and the walls are open, your negotiating position collapses and the true cost is no longer a matter of opinion. Agree the settlement, or at least agree the scope and the disputed items in writing, before anyone lifts a floorboard. The same logic applies to stage payments once work does start.
Treating storm cover as automatic. It is not. The FCA's review of home and travel claims handling found that only 32% of storm damage claims made to its sample of firms in 2024 resulted in a payment, and it blamed vague policy definitions of what counts as a storm along with poor communication. If your claim is being resisted rather than under-settled, the argument is about the peril, not the price.
Missing the deadline to escalate. The complaint route is free and it works. In the quarter to June 2026 the Financial Ombudsman Service took in 1,766 new buildings insurance complaints and upheld 33% of the ones it resolved in the customer's favour. Put your complaint in writing to the insurer, attach the annotated comparison of the two documents, and keep every response. If the deadlock stands, take it to the ombudsman. Your rights against your own builder, separately, are covered in our guide to consumer rights when building work goes wrong.
Check the builder's side of the equation
You cannot argue that a settlement is short unless the quote you are holding it up against is sound. A vague builder's quote gives the insurer an easy reason to discount it, and a padded one gives them a reason to ignore it entirely. Upload the quote and we check the scope, the rates and the omissions against our benchmarks, so you know which parts of the gap are worth fighting for. It usually takes about ten minutes.
Got a builder's quote for insurance repairs? Check the scope and rates behind the settlement figure
See how your costs compare to thousands of real UK quotes.
Get my estimateSources
- FCA: Home and travel claims handling arrangements - July 2025 review covering cash settlements, storm claims and the 32% storm payment rate
- FCA: Response to Which?'s super-complaint on home and travel insurance - December 2025, including the review of storm and cash settlement handling at 13 of 15 sampled home insurers
- Financial Ombudsman Service: Settling home insurance claims (consumers) - how the ombudsman approaches the insurer's choice of settlement method
- Financial Ombudsman Service: Settling home insurance claims (guidance for businesses) - the ombudsman's position on cash settlements and the limit of liability, VAT, betterment, repair quality and matching sets
- Financial Ombudsman Service: final decision DRN-6459887 - 2026 decision increasing a cash settlement from £5,361.49 to £7,778.55 excluding VAT, plus 8% simple interest and £350 compensation
- Financial Ombudsman Service: quarterly complaints data, Q1 2026/27 - 1,766 new buildings insurance complaints in the quarter to June 2026, 33% upheld
- Regulated Activities Order 2001, article 39B - the exemption that applies to loss adjusting carried on for an insurer
- ABI: Average claim for subsidence reaches record £20,000 - August 2026 property insurance tracker
- Aviva: One in four escape of water claims occur during summer months - July 2026 analysis of Aviva home claims
Was this useful?