Upheld: unfair pricing, misleading communication, lack of transparency complaint against HDI Global Speciality SE
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5938148 of 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00. unfair pricing, misleading communication, lack of transparency complaint against HDI Global Speciality SE. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5938148 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HDI Global Speciality SE |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | unfair pricing, misleading communication, lack of transparency |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | HDI Global Speciality SE must pay £500 compensation to Mr P to acknowledge both the financial and non-financial losses arising from the unclear communication about premium increases and the unfair pricing differential between the renewal and alternative policy. |
Summary
Mr P complained about the pricing of his pet insurance policy with HDI. After taking out a lifetime pet insurance policy in 2024 for £1,350, Mr P was quoted a renewal premium of nearly £2,100 (a 50% increase) in 2025, which he accepted. Several months later, he discovered an alternative HDI policy with identical cover available for just over £800. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that HDI failed to clearly communicate that premium increases could be as substantial as 50% without claims, and failed to adequately explain the 60% price differential between the renewal and alternative policy. HDI was ordered to pay £500 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that whilst HDI was entitled to increase premiums based on its risk assessment and had done so consistently across all policyholders, it failed to communicate clearly that increases could be as substantial as 50% without claims. The ombudsman noted that other insurers use language such as 'significant' to convey this scale of increase. Additionally, HDI failed to adequately explain why an identical policy was available at 60% less cost as a new policy compared to the renewal premium, particularly given that no claims had been made and therefore the generic explanations provided (waiting periods and continuous cover) did not account for such a substantial differential.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HDI Global Speciality SE, all decisions | 3 | 50% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website