Upheld: unfair claims handling and unreasonable proof of purchase requirement complaint against Domestic & General Insurance Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6065031 of 2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claims handling and unreasonable proof of purchase requirement complaint against Domestic & General Insurance Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6065031 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Domestic & General Insurance Plc |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claims handling and unreasonable proof of purchase requirement |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | DG must: (1) Pay Miss H a settlement based on the replacement value under the policy terms, deducting the £12.60 premium refund previously paid; (2) Add interest at 8% simple per annum from September 2024 to the date of settlement; (3) Pay Miss H a further £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience (in addition to approximately £50 already paid). |
Summary
Miss H complained about DG's handling of claims under her home appliance insurance policies. DG declined her freezer claim in September 2024 due to lack of proof of purchase, despite Miss H having disclosed ownership during the July 2024 policy sale call. DG subsequently cancelled the policy and refunded premiums. Miss H also complained about delays in resolving a washing machine claim, which involved multiple engineer visits before a replacement was eventually provided in July 2025. The ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding the freezer claim, finding DG acted unfairly by requiring proof of purchase when the item was available for inspection and ownership had been established during the sale. The ombudsman found DG did not offer alternative proof as claimed. The ombudsman directed DG to pay the replacement value under the policy terms, plus interest from September 2024, and £150 additional compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that whilst the policy terms require ownership, they do not make proof of purchase a strict requirement. The ombudsman considered it significant that Miss H had disclosed ownership of the freezer during the policy sale call, which was sufficient to show ownership. The ombudsman found that DG did not offer alternative proof of ownership as claimed, evidenced by the absence of such communication in the email chain and system notes. Even if alternatives had been offered, the ombudsman considered it unreasonable to require proof when the freezer was available for inspection at Miss H's property. The ombudsman reasoned that DG could have arranged an inspection to verify ownership, and such an inspection would likely have confirmed the freezer's presence. The ombudsman concluded that DG's unfair refusal to progress the claim, even to arrange an inspection, meant Miss H reasonably arranged a replacement herself. The ombudsman found DG's actions caused distress and inconvenience warranting compensation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Domestic & General Insurance Plc, all decisions | 657 | 31% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 20,668 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website