Storm damage can happen in minutes. Resolving the insurance claim can take considerably longer — particularly when the insurer says the weather did not cause the damage at all.

A homeowner may wake after a night of severe weather to find missing roof tiles, water entering through the ceiling, damaged chimney stacks, collapsed sections of roofing or other substantial damage.

They contact the insurer expecting the purpose of their buildings insurance to be relatively straightforward. There was a storm. The property was damaged. They have insurance.

Then the surveyor arrives — and somewhere between the inspection and the insurer's decision, the argument changes.

• “The wind speeds weren't sufficient.”
• “There is evidence of pre-existing deterioration.”
• “The roof was already in poor condition.”
• “The storm merely highlighted an existing defect.”
• Or perhaps the phrase homeowners hear most frequently: “wear and tear”.

Storm damage claims are costing more

This is not a marginal area of insurance. According to the Association of British Insurers, insurers paid £244 million for storm damage to people's homes during 2025, 32% more than during the previous year. The average storm-damage payout was approximately £2,450. Across weather-related property claims generally, insurers paid £1.2 billion during the year.

But the fact that insurers pay substantial sums for storm claims does not mean every claim is straightforward.

The Financial Ombudsman Service says that storm complaints commonly involve disputes about two fundamental issues:

Those questions sit behind a large proportion of rejected storm-damage claims — and they are not always as simple as they sound.

“There wasn't a storm”

This can be particularly difficult for a policyholder to understand. You heard the wind. You saw the rain. Neighbours suffered damage. Perhaps tiles came off the roof overnight. Yet the insurer says the weather conditions did not satisfy its definition of a storm.

The Financial Ombudsman explains that when considering a rejected storm claim, one of the first questions it asks is whether storm conditions actually occurred on or around the date the damage happened. Historic weather information can therefore become important evidence.

But wind speed is not necessarily the entire story. The Ombudsman says a storm will usually involve violent winds, commonly accompanied by rain, hail or snow, while extreme rainfall, hail or snowfall may itself amount to storm conditions in appropriate circumstances.

“Your roof was already worn”

This is where many storm claims become significantly more complicated.

Insurance is generally intended to cover sudden and unforeseen events. It is not intended to fund the ordinary maintenance of an ageing property. That principle is relatively easy to understand.

What can be much harder is deciding what actually caused this particular damage.

Suppose a roof is 25 years old. There is severe weather. Several tiles are torn away and water subsequently enters the building. The fact that the roof was not brand new does not, by itself, necessarily answer the question of causation.

The Financial Ombudsman specifically says that a property being in less-than-perfect condition does not automatically mean the resulting damage was caused by wear and tear. It weighs the evidence to decide whether the property's condition or the storm was the primary cause.

That distinction can potentially be worth thousands of pounds.

The crucial question: what actually caused the damage?

The Financial Ombudsman describes a useful three-stage approach to disputed storm claims. It considers whether storm conditions occurred, whether the damage is consistent with storm damage, and whether the storm was the main cause of the damage — or whether other factors meant the damage would probably have happened anyway.

That final question can be decisive.

Imagine two houses. Both have older roofs. Both experience the same storm. At the first property, photographs and reports show extensive pre-existing deterioration. At the second property, the roof had been functioning without apparent problems until severe weather suddenly displaced a substantial section.

The words “the roof is old” do not necessarily resolve those two claims in the same way.

If your insurer relies on “wear and tear”, look at what proves it

This is one of the most important points for anyone whose storm-damage claim has been rejected.

An insurer cannot necessarily resolve the issue simply by placing the words “wear and tear” in a letter. The Financial Ombudsman states that where an insurer relies upon an exclusion such as wear and tear or gradual deterioration, the insurer should be able to show that the exclusion applies. It may rely on evidence such as an inspection or surveyor's report.

So ask what the surveyor's report actually says — not simply what the insurer's letter says the report says.

• Does the report identify specific deterioration?
• Are photographs provided?
• Does it explain how long the defect is believed to have existed?
• Does it establish that the damage would probably have occurred regardless of the storm?
• Does it distinguish pre-existing deterioration from new storm damage?
• Does it identify the physical mechanism by which the damage occurred?

There is an Ombudsman case study illustrating precisely this issue. A couple's roof claim was rejected on the basis that rusty nails securing the roof slates amounted to wear and tear. The insurer could not provide clear supporting evidence from the first contractor. A second contractor produced a more detailed report concluding that the damage had been caused by the storm. The Ombudsman found the second report more persuasive and said the insurer should reconsider the claim.

That does not mean every disputed roof claim will succeed. It demonstrates something more useful:

Rejected because of “wear and tear”?

If the repair bill is significant, do not assume that phrase answers every question. Send us the rejection letter, policy wording and the insurer's surveyor or loss-adjuster report. We can carry out a free initial claim review and consider whether the reasoning should be examined more closely.

“The storm only exposed an existing problem”

Sometimes that argument will be correct. Sometimes it may deserve considerably more scrutiny.

The Ombudsman gives examples where a roof was already obviously in poor repair before severe weather. Where the storm merely highlights an existing problem, the insurer's position may be supported by the evidence.

But there is an important difference between:

That distinction may require analysis of pre-loss photographs, maintenance records, contractor reports, surveyor reports, weather records, previous leaks or repairs, photographs immediately after the event, the age and construction of the roof and the precise policy wording.

A conclusion should follow the evidence. The evidence should not simply be selected to fit a conclusion already reached.

Has the insurer rejected the whole claim when only part is disputed?

Storm events can produce more than one type of damage.

There may be a disagreement concerning the condition of part of the roof but also consequential internal water damage. Or one part of a structure may genuinely have suffered gradual deterioration while another area appears to have been damaged suddenly.

The question should therefore not always be:

“Is this a wear-and-tear claim?”

It may instead be:

That distinction can materially change the value of a claim.

The insurer has accepted the claim — but the settlement seems too low

Rejection is only one type of storm-damage dispute. Sometimes liability is accepted but the policyholder disputes the amount being offered.

That can involve disagreements over:

• the extent of roof replacement required;
• matching existing materials;
• scaffolding;
• internal water damage;
• plastering and decoration;
• alternative accommodation;
• contractor costs;
• drying and remediation;
• consequential damage; or
• whether a repair proposed by the insurer is genuinely adequate.

An accepted storm claim can still become a significant dispute.

What if the insurer's surveyor disagrees with your roofer?

Then you have an evidence dispute.

Your roofer may say storm. The insurer's surveyor may say deterioration. Neither conclusion automatically becomes correct simply because somebody has written it in a report.

Look at the reasoning. A useful report should explain why the physical evidence supports its conclusion.

The strongest disputes tend to move away from:

“My contractor says one thing and your contractor says another.”

and towards:

Insurers have obligations when handling claims

FCA claims-handling rules require insurers to handle claims promptly and fairly, provide reasonable guidance and information about the progress of a claim, and not unreasonably reject a claim.

That does not mean every storm claim must be paid.

It does mean a rejection should withstand proper scrutiny.

Five things we would want to see before accepting a rejected storm claim

If a claim worth thousands — or tens of thousands — of pounds has been rejected, we would normally want to understand five things before drawing conclusions.

Before you accept “wear and tear”, find out whether the decision stands up

A rejected storm-damage claim can leave a homeowner facing a very unpleasant choice: accept the insurer's decision and fund substantial repairs personally, or challenge it.

The mistake is assuming that challenging the decision simply means writing another angry complaint. It does not.

A serious challenge starts by understanding why the claim has been rejected and whether the evidence actually supports that decision.

At Insurance Dispute Service, we review rejected, underpaid, delayed and disputed insurance claims.

If your insurer has rejected a storm or roof-damage claim, we can initially look at what has happened and consider whether there appears to be a substantive basis for challenging the insurer's position.

Has your storm-damage claim been rejected or underpaid?

For an initial review, send us:

• the insurer's rejection or settlement letter;
• your policy wording and schedule;
• the insurer's surveyor or loss-adjuster's report;
• your own contractor or roofer's report, if you have one;
• photographs of the damage; and
• any relevant correspondence.

We can look at the dispute, identify what the insurer is relying upon and consider whether there may be a stronger route forward.

Important information

Insurance Dispute Service is an optional service. You can complain directly to your insurer without using a representative. The appropriate course depends upon the individual policy, evidence, circumstances and applicable deadlines. No particular outcome can be guaranteed.

Frequently asked questions

Official sources and further reading

• Financial Ombudsman Service: Storm damage complaints
• Financial Ombudsman Service: How it approaches storm-damage disputes
• Financial Ombudsman Service: Storm-damage case study
• Association of British Insurers: Storms and home insurance
• Association of British Insurers: 2025 property insurance weather claims
• Financial Conduct Authority Handbook: ICOBS 8 — Claims handling

This article provides general information, not legal advice. Every insurance claim depends on its individual circumstances, evidence, policy wording, eligibility and relevant deadlines.