AXA Accused of Using Unqualified Accessors as 23- Month Claim Ordeal Exposes Systemic Failures

Investigation Reveals AXA Insurance Relied on Unqualified Assessors, Ignored Professional Standards, and Maintained a 12-Month Pattern of Evasion, Resulting in a 23-Month Ordeal for Essex Family
New evidence suggests systemic claim undervaluation, regulatory breaches, and potential industry-wide malpractice affecting thousands of UK policyholders
BUCKHURST HILL, ESSEX, - A 23-month investigation into AXA Insurance's handling of a large home-damage claim has uncovered compelling evidence suggesting the insurer used unqualified cost assessors, issued assessments that are statistically impossible, and engaged in a 12-month pattern of evasion when questioned about their assessor's professional credentials.
The case, involving Buckhurst Hill homeowner Anish Verma, highlights failures that align with what consumer advocates, the BBC, Which? and the Financial Ombudsman Service have recently described as a "broken" insurance market, one marked by delays, reversals, under-valuations, and systematic non-compliance with industry standards.
The Verma family have now been displaced from their home for 23 months and remain without resolution.

Catastrophic Leak, Initial Liability Admission, Followed by a Reversal and Delays
The Verma family home suffered extensive water-damage, leaving the property uninhabitable. AXA initially accepted liability and issued early payments, only to later reverse position, dispute professionally-prepared cost assessments, and rely instead on a valuation produced by Crawford & Company, AXA's appointed assessor.
However, a full review of Crawford's qualifications revealed a serious problem:
Crawford & Company is not qualified to perform cost assessments under RICS standards.
This is confirmed by:
• Crawford's own website, which offers no cost assessment or quantity surveying services
• The RICS Directory, which lists no Chartered Quantity Surveyors under Crawford for this function
• RICS professional standards, which require qualified Chartered Quantity Surveyors for cost-assessment work
Two independent, fully RICS-qualified surveyors assessed the damage at ~£300,000, while AXA's unqualified assessor provided a figure of £91,600.
This £208,400 gap represents a valuation that is not just unreasonable, it is statistically impossible.

UPDATE: 24 November 2025 - AXA has made a settlement offer substantially below independent qualified assessments and named assessors Terry Mcane-Slaughter and Steven Smith, but after 16 months still provided no RICS credentials. Independent verification confirms neither is listed as a Chartered Quantity Surveyor in the RICS register. Steven Smith is a loss adjuster (ACILA), not a quantity surveyor, breaching FCA regulations. AXA's letter threatens to cancel the policy and accuses the family of "exaggeration" despite using qualified professionals whilst AXA used unqualified assessors. The family is rejecting the offer and filing regulatory complaints.

A Mathematical Impossibility: Only 0.01% Probability AXA's Assessment Is Correct
Independent statistical modelling demonstrates:
AXA's figure of £91,600 is 6.95 standard deviations below the expected professional range
Professional assessments for a £300,000 project normally vary within ±10-15%, not 227%
This equates to a 0.01% probability of AXA's figure being correct
In plain terms:
"If 10,000 qualified professionals assessed this damage, 9,999 would arrive near £300,000. Only one would arrive near AXA's £91,600 figure."
This statistical impossibility strongly suggests either systematic error or deliberate undervaluation, not legitimate professional disagreement.

AXA's 12-Month Pattern of Evasion: Three Requests, Zero Answers
One of the most serious findings is AXA's repeated refusal, over 12 months, to confirm the qualifications of its chosen assessor.
Timeline of Evasion
Summer 2024 - AXA is first asked if Crawford is properly qualified.
AXA avoids the question.
10 September 2025 - Solicitors formally request confirmation of qualifications.
AXA does not respond.
25 October 2025 - Solicitors ask again.
AXA remains silent.
AXA has now maintained 9+ weeks of complete silence, after evading the same question for more than a year.
Why this matters:
If Crawford were properly qualified, AXA could answer in five minutes by providing:
• a RICS membership number, or
• a Chartered Quantity Surveyor certificate
Their refusal to answer three repeated requests across 12 months, including those made formally by solicitors, is described by legal experts as a strong indicator of "consciousness of guilt."
Mr Verma summarises:
"AXA has now avoided answering this basic question three times over twelve months. When we first asked in summer 2024, they avoided the question. When my solicitors requested confirmation on 10 September 2025, they went silent. When we asked again on 25 October 2025, the silence continued. It's now been nine weeks with no response. Their pattern of evasion makes it abundantly clear: they know Crawford isn't qualified, and they cannot defend using them."
This behaviour aligns with concerns raised by Fairer Finance in September 2025, where Managing Director James Daley warned that despite clear FCA findings of industry failures, the regulator had shown "no appetite to tackle these" systemic problems.

This Case Mirrors What Which? and the BBC Call a "Broken System"
Which? (September 2025 Super-Complaint)
Which? reported that consumers in home-insurance claims described being "gaslighted" and facing prolonged delays worse than the trauma of the initial damage.
BBC (September 2025 Investigation)
The BBC described UK home insurance as "broken", noting:
Buildings insurance acceptance rates have fallen to 63%
Claims processes are "failing families on every level"
FOS & FCA Statistics
• 305,726 complaints in 2024/25 (FOS - highest in six years)
• 54% increase in disputes year-on-year
• Buildings insurance acceptance just 63%
• AXA-specific complaint rate: 5.56 per 1,000 policies - 106% above industry average
The Verma case sits squarely within these national patterns.

The Human Cost: 23 Months of Displacement, Trauma, and Financial Harm
The Verma family has been displaced for nearly two years, living in temporary accommodation unsuitable for their needs. The elderly parents and children have suffered emotionally, physically, and financially.
Mr Verma states:
"This was not just a claim; it was our home, our safety, our future. We cooperated fully, provided every document, every expert report. AXA's U-turn destroyed our lives. Even when their own files contradicted their position, they pushed on."
Their experience mirrors Which?'s findings that some families describe the claims process as worse than the disaster itself.

Delay, Deny, Defend, A Documented Insurance Strategy
Experts warn that AXA's behavior matches the well-documented insurance-industry model known as "Delay, Deny, Defend," first identified by Professor Jay M. Feinman.
This model involves:
• Prolonged delays
• Denying legitimate claims
• Defending indefensible positions
• Using procedural exhaustion to pressure families
The Verma case provides textbook evidence of these tactics.

Solicitor's Letter to AXA CEO Highlights Regulatory and Ethical Failures
A formal letter sent to Tara Foley, CEO of AXA UK, sets out the key issues:
Crawford is not qualified under RICS standards
AXA's own statements claim compliance with RICS principles
AXA ignored professional assessments
AXA avoided confirming qualifications for over 12 months
The family has suffered 23 months of displacement
AXA's silence raises questions of public interest and systemic practice
Mr Verma has signalled that without resolution, the matter will be escalated to:
• The FCA
• The Financial Ombudsman Service
• Consumer rights organisations
• National media outlets

Legal Action and FCA Complaint Imminent
Mr Verma is preparing:
A full FCA complaint under ICOBS, which requires claims to be handled promptly and fairly
Legal proceedings seeking:
Full compensation based on qualified assessments
Damages for bad-faith conduct
Recovery of all costs incurred during the 23-month ordeal
Legal experts believe this case may set a precedent for how UK insurers must verify assessor qualifications before relying on their valuations.

Industry-Wide Implications: Could This Affect Thousands?
Consumer advocates warn this could be one of the largest insurance-qualification scandals in recent years.
Given AXA's high complaint rates, the BBC's findings, and Which?'s super-complaint, questions arise:
How many policyholders had their claims assessed by unqualified people?
How many accepted low offers because they trusted AXA's assessor?
Has a structural failure been occurring undetected for years?
Mr Verma urges all AXA customers whose claims were handled by Crawford to seek independent RICS-qualified assessments.

About the Case
Policyholder: Anish Verma
Property: Buckhurst Hill, Essex
Insurer: AXA Insurance UK plc
Claim Type: Water damage (major leak)
Displacement: 23 months
AXA's Assessor: Crawford & Company (unqualified for cost assessment)
Independent Assessments: Two qualified professionals (~£300,000)
AXA's Assessment: £91,600 (0.01% probability of accuracy)
AXA's Response to Qualification Requests: Zero answers across 12 months

Notes to Editors
All details sourced from:
Uploaded case files, statistical analysis, and correspondence
Which? Super-Complaint (September 2025)
BBC Investigation (May & September 2025)
FCA & FOS reports (2024-2025)
Fairer Finance statements (2025)
RICS Standards and publicly searchable RICS Directory.

Giano Press
Investigations & Consumer Protection Desk
Location: 8597 Kings Road
East London, UK
Email: arvirtual28@gmail.com

A 23-month investigation into AXA Insurance reveals the insurer used unqualified assessors, issued a valuation with a 0.01% probability of accuracy, and avoided confirming assessor qualifications for nearly a year. The case of Buckhurst Hill homeowner Anish Verma-displaced for 23 months-highlights alleged breaches of RICS standards, FCA regulations, and industry best practice. Independent RICS-qualified assessments valued the damage at ~£300,000, while AXA's unqualified assessor produced a £91,600 figure. AXA also ignored three formal qualification requests and recently issued a low settlement offer without providing credentials. The case reflects broader failures identified by Which?, the BBC, FOS, and the FCA.

This release was published on openPR.