QBE must pay $2000 to the parents of a young child after the family faced repeated delays and unsafe living conditions during rectification for damage caused by a leaking hot water system.

A claim was lodged on a QBE home insurance policy on February 28 last year, and the insurer accepted the claim and authorised repairs.

But the insured complained to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) about the level of service and sought compensation for stress and anxiety.

AFCA agreed with the complainant that QBE failed to meet timeframes – with a scope of work not finalised until five months later in August – and communicated badly.

Some “poorly completed repairs” caused a second escape of liquid and additional damage to the home, AFCA says, and the couple’s young child was put at risk.

“The insurer had been put on notice from early in the claim that the complainant had a young child, and that the condition their home had been left in month after month was not safe,” the AFCA ruling says.

“The complainant says his child had hurt himself whilst trying to navigate the unsafe condition of the home and has provided a photograph to support this.

“The complainant and his family were forced to sleep in the one room for this entire time and for the most part live without facility to wash clothes. The complainant says this was extremely frustrating given they had a nappy-wearing child which required constant washing of nappies and clothes.

“The complainant says the whole experience had a negative impact on his relationship with his wife, given he works away from home and only returns on weekends, leaving added pressure on his wife to deal with all these issues whilst also having to care for the family in the complainant’s absence.”

AFCA says the insurer should have provided temporary alternative accommodation, given the circumstances.

It says that in addition to the insurer’s offer to waive the $500 excess, QBE must also pay the complainant $2000 compensation.

“I accept the insurer eventually fulfilled its policy obligations, however, this was after having provided a poor claims experience,” the AFCA ombudsman said.

AFCA says the insurer “acknowledged and apologised for some of the delays” but the only explanation given was “being extremely busy with other claims”.

Click here to read the full ruling.