Precisely what I said somewhere in the above posts RE who/what is at fault and proximate causes etc.

I still stand by this.

The point here is that pford has exhausted Brit's complaint procedures and can do no more with them. This is now a matter for the Ombudsman who will be more than willing to look at the complaint given that Brit have given their final word and the Insured is still unhappy. Brit are probably hoping the Insured doesn't go to FOS. At the end of the day it's a risk worth taking for the sake of £500 it will cost for the report anyway; it's nothing in comparison to the payout.

In answer to pford's question RE 'gradual' you are quite correct in it not being well documented. Point 9 - http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/pitch-fibre-pipes.html#9 although 'gradual deterioration' doesn't necessarily mean over 'years'.

From an underwriting point of view 'gradual' would mean a loss not directly resulting from a sudden identifiable, unintended and unexpected incident occurring in it's entirety at a specific time and place during the period of insurance. (similar to gradual pollution under a commercial policy). Emphasis on 'at a specific time and place during the period of insurance'.

Interestingly policy wordings are changing fast to amend 'gradually operating clause' to 'other damage that that happens gradually over a period of time'. Obviously this doesn't help matters anyway considering we are looking for the answer to 'a period of time'. In the eyes of the FOS they will be looking at professional opinion to determine what's the reasonable period of time.

You should emphasise the initial report and then the reports that followed. The professional opinion you got was the wall would wear away quickly due to the material it's made from. This strikes me as anything BUT gradual in that case! They've pretty much wrapped it up themselves! It can't be gradual because it would be rapid given the levels of water. 'Gradual' and 'rapid' are words that can't be used together as they are conflicting and contradicting and therefore not a reasonable period of time for the 'gradual' stance.

Also, as I commented on before, there is the issue of the blocked drain and access. Without adequate drainage, water builds up and will cause damage. Then you have the fact that the insurer cannot use the material of the wall an excuse - what was built years ago may not be built in the same way now etc. and so forth.

The FOS WILL uphold this claim PROVIDED THAT IT IS PRESENTED PROPERLY! Pford, without sounding crude, you seem relatively wealthy. It would be a good idea to pay services to get this professionally presented, in my opinion. Take the comments from this thread with you too!