Not upheld: mis-selling - failure to provide policy wording prior to sale complaint against Atlanta Insurance Intermediaries Limited (Swinton)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Swinton mis-sold him a buildings insurance policy by not providing the full policy wording before renewal in March 2025. When Mr G made a claim for escape of water damage, the insurer declined it based on an exclusion for damage caused by inadequacy or absence of sealant or grout. Mr G argued that if he had received the policy wording earlier, he would not have taken out the cover. The ombudsman found that Swinton adequately signposted Mr G to the policy wording through the documents provided and that the exclusion was standard in most buildings insurance policies. The ombudsman concluded that even if the policy wording had been provided at renewal, Mr G would likely not have been in a different position and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although the policy wording was not sent prior to the claim, Swinton adequately signposted Mr G to the policy wording through the documents provided (statement of fact, schedule, and IPID). The IPID specifically stated that full terms could be found in the policy wording. The ombudsman considered it unreasonable for Mr G to assume he was covered for EOW without any terms, conditions or exclusions applying. Additionally, the exclusion was not unusual as most buildings insurance policies contain similar exclusions for maintenance-related damage. The ombudsman concluded that even if the policy wording had been sent at renewal, Mr G would likely not have been in a different position as alternative policies would probably contain similar exclusions, and he would not have opted for no buildings insurance cover.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website