Patricia Prout, a 71-year-old widow from Mere, Wiltshire, is facing significant financial hardship after a fire caused by her tenant left her property severely damaged and her insurance company offering only a fraction of the repair costs.

The incident occurred in December 2024, when Martin Clayton, 73 at the time, who had rented Prout’s three-bedroom house for about a decade, deliberately set fire to the property following a two-month eviction notice. Clayton, who had recently retired and said he could no longer afford rent, poured petrol on the living room floor and ignited it at around 3 a.m., causing an explosion that extensively damaged the home.

Clayton was subsequently arrested and convicted of arson, receiving a prison sentence of three years and one month, although he is expected to be released early. During court proceedings at Salisbury Crown Court in April, the judge reportedly characterized Clayton’s actions as a suicide attempt rather than malicious intent. Clayton himself told police that his motive was to harm himself.

Despite this, Prout’s insurance provider, HDI UK & Ireland, has declined to cover the full cost of repairs. The insurer argued that the damage was “malicious” rather than “accidental,” a distinction that typically excludes coverage under standard policies. After initially offering Prout £5,000 shortly after the fire, the insurer raised the offer to £55,000 months later before reducing it back to £5,000 last month. Builders contracted to assess the damage estimate that repairing the substantial structural issues could cost around £400,000.

Prout, a retired care worker, said she feels powerless after paying approximately £400 annually for the property’s insurance. “You pay insurance for all of those years, for what?” she said, describing the state of the house, with cracks visible throughout, shattered glass scattered on the floor, and structural debris embedded in the conservatory roof.

The incident and its aftermath have left Prout unable to rent out the home, intensifying her financial strain. HDI maintained that its assessment of the claim was conducted individually and in accordance with policy terms. The loss-adjusting firm involved, Sedgwick, did not respond to requests for comment.

This case highlights the challenges landlords face when tenant-related property damage falls under grey areas of insurance coverage, particularly when courts differ in their interpretation of the act’s intent.