A landlord whose rental property was flood damaged has lost his bid to increase compensation for assessment and make-safe delays after a dispute ruling determined that he was partly responsible for the inconveniences.

The complainant lodged a claim after the building was damaged by flooding in March. Disputes arose over the insurer’s handling of the claim, including its assignment of several assessors to inspect the property and arrange make-safes.

Westpac General Insurance had yet to assess the extent of damage or determine whether it would accept the claim at the time of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) hearing.

The ruling heard the insurer appointed an assessor within days after the claim was made, but the claimant advised that he did not want them to attend based on “concerns about their qualifications.”

A second assessor was assigned to the task but had not received instructions from Westpac and could not attend the property immediately. The insurer informed the landlord that the only alternative was the first assessor, which he rejected, electing to wait on the second assessor.

The assessor later told the insurer that they would not conduct the works “because of the way the complainant had been dealing with their staff.”

AFCA heard that a third assessor, appointed on April 5, then initially attended the wrong address. By May 5 the insurer confirmed the make-safe had been completed.

The claimant disputed that the work had been adequately attended to and expressed concerns about whether the technician was “suitably qualified.” He also noted that inconveniences with the claims process required him to stay at the property, away from his home.

AFCA accepted that inconveniences had been caused due to the insurer and its representatives, noting delays with the second and third assessors, but said timings were also “adversely affected” by the complainant’s dealings with the parties appointed.

“Other delays in having the make safe completed were the result of the complainant’s actions and preferences, in terms of who carried out the work,” the ruling ombudsman said.

“I have also not seen evidence to show the assessor’s appointed/proposed by the insurer were not appropriately qualified to carry out the necessary work.”

The determination agreed that the $500 compensation offered by Westpac General Insurance to the insured was fair and rejected the claimant’s appeal to increase the payment.

“The available evidence does not support the award of further compensation beyond the amount already offered by the insurer,” AFCA said.

“While the complainant has clearly felt upset and inconvenienced by the way the claim has been progressed to date, it would not be fair to hold the insurer solely responsible for that.”

Click here for the ruling.