Upheld: unfair application of policy exclusions / inadequate disclosure of exclusion terms complaint against 247 Home Assist Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6019778 of 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00. unfair application of policy exclusions / inadequate disclosure of exclusion terms complaint against 247 Home Assist Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6019778 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | 247 Home Assist Limited |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | unfair application of policy exclusions / inadequate disclosure of exclusion terms |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | 247 Home Assist Limited must: (1) Reimburse Mr M £268 (the cost of the manufacturer repair) plus interest at 8% per annum simple from the date of repair until settlement; (2) Pay Mr M £30 compensation for distress and inconvenience. The ombudsman declined to order a refund of premiums or excess as Mr M benefitted from the policy being in place. |
Summary
Mr M purchased boiler care insurance from 247 Home Assist Limited in October 2023 for a 15-year-old boiler. When the boiler broke down in March 2024, an engineer determined it was beyond economic repair and Mr M paid £268 for a manufacturer repair after 247 refused to cover the costs. 247 applied a 'beyond economic repair' limit of £250 based on a boiler valuation of approximately £200, which was not clearly communicated in the policy documentation. The ombudsman found that 247 acted unfairly by applying this exclusion when Mr M could not have reasonably assessed its impact at the time of purchase, as the IPID stated cover up to £1,000 per claim without adequately cross-referencing the exclusion. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered 247 to reimburse £268 plus interest and pay £30 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while the terms and conditions contained exclusions for boilers beyond economic repair, the IPID clearly stated cover was provided up to £1,000 per claim without adequately cross-referencing the exclusion. The way 247 assessed boiler value and applied the £250 beyond economic repair limit was not clearly communicated in the policy documentation, making it impossible for Mr M to fairly assess whether making a claim was worthwhile. Therefore, it was unfair and unreasonable for 247 to apply this exclusion in the circumstances.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| 247 Home Assist Limited, all decisions | 3 | 33% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 20,668 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website