Upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Xbridge Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5922785 of 2026-01-20T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Xbridge Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5922785 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-01-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Xbridge Limited |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Xbridge must: (1) arrange for Mr S's legal expenses claim to be assessed on the basis that the policy was renewed and cover was in place at the date of occurrence; (2) if cover is available, pay all costs and expenses the claims handlers determine should be paid; (3) if Mr S has already paid amounts, reimburse those costs plus 8% simple interest from the date of payment to settlement; (4) provide a tax deduction certificate if requested; (5) deduct the renewal premium from any amounts paid; (6) pay £100 for distress and inconvenience if not already paid. |
Summary
Mr S held a landlord legal expenses insurance policy through Xbridge. When renewing in December 2024, Xbridge refused to renew the policy because the tenancy agreement had expired, but told Mr S that repossession proceedings would be covered under his existing policy. When the tenants did not leave and Mr S made a claim, the insurer declined it because the date of occurrence fell outside the policy period. The ombudsman found Xbridge failed to provide clear information that continuous cover was necessary and that a fixed-term tenancy typically converts to a rolling periodic tenancy, meaning renewal should have been possible. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Xbridge to arrange for the claim to be reassessed as if the policy had been renewed, pay any covered costs plus interest, and pay £100 for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Xbridge provided an information-only sale and therefore had to give clear, fair and not misleading information. When Mr S specifically asked whether repossession proceedings would be covered by his existing policy, Xbridge explicitly told him they would be, but this was incorrect. The legal expenses insurer's decline was based on the date of occurrence falling outside the policy period, not on late reporting. Xbridge should have informed Mr S that cover depended on when the date of occurrence fell and that continuous cover was necessary. Regarding the renewal refusal, a fixed-term tenancy that expires typically converts to a rolling periodic tenancy, so there was likely a continuing tenancy in place. Had Mr S been properly informed, he would have sought to renew the policy given his clear interest in retaining legal expenses cover and the modest premium. The ombudsman rejected Mr S's claim for lost rent as it is unclear whether a repossession would have proceeded faster or the property been let sooner even with proper cover.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Xbridge Limited, all decisions | 45 | 27% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 32,767 | 33% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 21,293 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website