Veste

Not upheld: unfair premium increase and poor claims service complaint against Wakam

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5969169 of 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00. unfair premium increase and poor claims service complaint against Wakam. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-5969169
Decision date2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00
FirmWakam
ProductOther regulated product
Claim typeunfair premium increase and poor claims service
OutcomeNot upheld
Remedy£200 compensation for service delays and inconvenience (already paid). 8% interest on delayed claim payments from 4 weeks after claim date until payment (already paid). No additional remedy ordered.

Summary

Mr M complained to Wakam about unfair premium increases and poor service on his pet insurance policy for his dog R. His monthly premium increased from £34.42 to £63.54 upon renewal, and two claims made in March 2025 took 10 and 19 weeks to settle respectively, exceeding Wakam's 8-week standard. Wakam offered £200 compensation plus 8% interest on delayed payments but did not uphold the premium complaint. The ombudsman found the compensation fair and the premium increase justified by standard factors including vet fee inflation, pet age, and claims history, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Wakam's compensation package (£200 plus 8% interest from 4 weeks post-claim) was fair and in line with FOS guidelines for service failures causing inconvenience over several weeks. The co-payment was a contractual term agreed by Mr M and was fairly applied regardless of payment timing. The premium increase was found to be fair as Wakam applied standard industry factors (vet fee inflation, pet age, claims history) consistently and in accordance with normal insurance practice, where claims are factored into renewal pricing based on the date of the insured event rather than settlement date.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Wakam, all decisions26351%
Other regulated product, all decisions52,40830%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website