Had a flood in the house and insurance-provided drying contractor didn't inspect or mention the underfloor space in their scope of works.

Asked another drying contractor to look and they actually made holes and inspected the underfloor space.

When raised the concern to the insurer about the scope of works they said that drying the room above with dehumidifiers will dry the underfloor space as well. Is that physically possible? The floor is quite thick wood.

It also didn't align with the insurance contractor saying that if we want to add underfloor space to the quote it will be for the price of an extra room.

The problems with the scope of works made me think that the insurance contractor is incompetent so I went with the non-insurance driers who used the holes in the floor to dry the space underneath and supporting timbers inside it.

I couldn't argue with insurance forever while the house is not dry.

Now the insurance will of course only pay for their own contractors discounted rate and scope of works which is much below what I paid for drying.

I complained but insurance's final reply doesn't contain any statements about the competency of their contractor.

I hope that by law I don't have to use insurance contractors if they are incompetent, so insurance should cover the cost of the contractor that I have used. Is that correct?

If yes, what is the best way to go about it - should I go to FOS or court?

Can I use FOS 92/10 decision in court? Some years ago the insurance contractor dried my house and it wasn't done properly.

Also it didn't show much competence that the insurance contractor would only give a time estimate for drying after I complained to insurance about the service being offered on a week-by-week basis with no estimate on when it would be dry.

You can use FOS or court. Using FOS means allowing Insurers 8 weeks to resolve any complaint and then the FOS process times (could be 6 months or more). With a court claim, you have to have had unresolved communications with Insurers and then you have to send a letter before action, giving them 21 days to settle the relevant amount or you will issue a court claim against them.

Personally I think you are correct that if there was water problems underneath the floor, then this had to be dealt with at the same time. You can use a previous FOS decision to underline your point. Even better would be an independent report from a surveyor who deals with such problems, but even if the report was on your side, you may not get the cost back.

In your situation, might I suggest that you don't use inflamatory words like the Insurers contractors were incompetent, as that will just get their backs up and they will dig their heels in. The words to use which might help achieve a better response are something like, the Insurers contractors scope of works did not appear to deal adequately with the situation and could actually increase the costs of reinstatement e.g. it would take longer to dry out, there may be further damage caused and the policyholder would suffer more inconvenience over a longer period.