The short answer
If CIGA rejects your claim, the first step is to get the reasons in writing. Claims are most often declined because the inspection concluded the damp came from an unrelated source — a leaking gutter, roof, defective pointing or rising damp — rather than a defect in the fill, or because the problem falls outside the guarantee terms. You can challenge that finding by obtaining an independent survey that addresses the specific reasons given, and asking CIGA to reconsider. If the work was funded under a regulated credit agreement, a separate complaint may be possible through the lender and the Financial Ombudsman Service. Where a clear contractual or negligence claim exists against a trading installer, the courts remain a further option.
A rejected CIGA claim can often be reopened with the right evidence. The sections below explain why claims are refused and what to do next.
After a rejection
- Firstget reasons in writing
- Common reasondamp from another source
- Challenge withindependent survey
- Finance routelender / FOS
- Last resortcourt claim if valid
Understand why it was rejected
Before doing anything else, ask CIGA to set out the reasons for the decision in writing. Most rejections fall into a few categories: the inspection found the damp came from an unrelated cause not covered by the guarantee; the problem was judged to be condensation from heating and ventilation rather than a defect; the work was found to be outside the guarantee terms or never registered; or the evidence did not establish a defect in the fill. Knowing precisely which reason applies is essential, because your response has to address that specific finding rather than restate the original complaint.
A written reason also tells you whether the decision is one you can realistically contest. If CIGA found that a leaking gutter was the source, the question becomes whether that finding is correct — something an independent survey can test directly. If the decision is that the work was never registered, the issue is different and points you towards finance or contractual routes instead. Treating the rejection letter as the starting point of your next move, rather than a closed door, is the difference between a productive challenge and simply repeating yourself.
Challenge the decision with evidence
The most effective response to a rejection is usually independent evidence that meets the reason head-on:
- An independent damp or building survey diagnosing the source of the damp.
- A borescope inspection showing the condition of the fill, if not already done.
- Evidence ruling out the alternative cause CIGA relied on — for example confirming the gutters and roof are sound.
- A written request to reconsider, attaching the new evidence and referencing the original reasons.
A surveyor independent of any remedial-work seller carries more weight than a general complaint.
| Rejection reason | Possible response | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Damp from gutter/roof | show it is sound | survey + photos |
| Condensation, not defect | borescope the fill | inspection report |
| Outside terms | check registration | CIGA records |
| No defect proven | independent survey | damp readings |
Indicative responses for guidance. Sources: CIGA; PCA.
Escalation routes
If CIGA maintains the rejection after reconsidering, other avenues may remain. Where the insulation was bought on a regulated credit agreement, you can complain to the finance provider under the Consumer Credit Act and, if unresolved, refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service free of charge. Where there is a genuine breach of contract or negligence by an installer who is still trading, a court claim is possible, subject to Limitation Act deadlines. Citizens Advice can help you understand which routes apply to your situation. Each of these is independent of CIGA's decision, so a rejected guarantee claim does not automatically close off every option.
These alternative routes carry their own time limits, which is why a rejection should prompt reasonably prompt action rather than indefinite delay. A finance complaint, once the provider issues its final response, has a limited window for referral to the Ombudsman; a court claim is governed by Limitation Act periods that run from the breach or the damage. None of this means rushing into litigation — for most people, testing CIGA's reasoning with an independent survey and asking them to reconsider is the proportionate first step. But knowing the other routes exist, and that they have deadlines, helps you avoid letting an option quietly expire while you decide.
Keep proportion and records
Not every rejection is wrong — sometimes the damp genuinely does come from a leaking gutter or condensation, and pursuing the insulation would not succeed. The honest approach is to test CIGA's reasoning with independent evidence and follow it where it leads. Throughout, keep written records of every contact, report and decision, with dates. If you do escalate to the Financial Ombudsman or court, that paper trail is what supports your case. The aim is to establish the true cause of the problem and pursue whoever is genuinely responsible, rather than to contest a decision that the evidence ends up confirming.
It helps to approach a rejection calmly and methodically rather than as a final verdict or, at the other extreme, an obvious injustice to be overturned at any cost. The right question is narrow and factual: is CIGA's stated reason supported by the evidence, or can an independent assessment show it is mistaken? Sometimes the answer vindicates the homeowner and reopens the claim; sometimes it confirms that the damp really does come from a gutter, a roof or condensation, and that the insulation is not at fault. Either outcome is useful, because it tells you where to direct your effort. Spending a modest sum on an independent survey to answer that single question is usually more productive than either accepting the rejection without testing it or escalating on principle before the cause has been properly established.
Frequently asked questions
Can I appeal a CIGA decision?
You can ask CIGA to reconsider, ideally with new independent evidence addressing the reasons they gave. If the work was funded on regulated credit, you may also raise a separate complaint with the finance provider and the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Why do CIGA reject claims?
Most often because the inspection concluded the damp came from an unrelated source such as a leaking gutter, roof or rising damp, or that it was condensation rather than a defect in the fill. Some are rejected as outside the guarantee terms.
What if I think CIGA's inspection was wrong?
Get the reasons in writing and commission an independent survey that tests their finding directly. If it supports you, ask CIGA to reconsider. Where a finance agreement or trading installer is involved, separate escalation routes may also apply.
Sources & further reading
Figures on this page are typical UK ranges drawn from published sources and depend on your specific property. They are guidance, not a quotation.