Veste

Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Lemonade Insurance N.V.

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5973417 of 2025-12-29T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Lemonade Insurance N.V.. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-5973417
Decision date2025-12-29T00:00:00+00:00
FirmLemonade Insurance N.V.
ProductOther regulated product
Claim typeMotor insurance, claim handling
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr S complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service about delays in Lemonade Insurance's handling of his contents insurance claim following a burglary, which he valued at £7,900. The claim was made on 11 June 2025, and Mr S complained on 5 August 2025 about the eight-week delay, being passed between parties, and a request for a recorded telephone interview. Lemonade's final response was provided on 7 August 2025, explaining that further investigations were necessary due to concerns about the claim's validity and previous claims history. The ombudsman examined the eight-week period and found that enquiries were actively progressing, reviews were being undertaken, and communication was ongoing as expected, with no significant avoidable delays identified. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied FCA ICOBS 8.1 requirements that insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly. Examining the eight-week period from claim submission to final response, the ombudsman found that enquiries were being actively made, reviews were being undertaken, and there was ongoing communication between parties progressing as expected. The ombudsman considered it understandable that further enquiries were made given the concerns raised over claim validity. No significant avoidable delays were identified during this period.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Lemonade Insurance N.V., all decisions1010%
Motor insurance, claim handling, all decisions12,79832%
Other regulated product, all decisions51,10530%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website