Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Saga Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms S complained that Saga refused to offer her buildings insurance at renewal, citing high flooding risk in her area. She disputed this assessment and provided alternative information, but Saga maintained that all four panel insurers had declined cover. The ombudsman found that Saga, as an intermediary, is not responsible for underwriting decisions and had followed its process appropriately. The policy terms had warned that cover might not be available at renewal, and Ms S was reasonably made aware of this possibility. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

As an insurance intermediary, Saga arranges insurance through panel insurers but is not responsible for underwriting decisions. The policy terms explicitly stated that Saga may not be able to provide cover if underwriting criteria or market conditions change materially. Saga followed its process by obtaining quotes from all four panel insurers, and the fact that none offered buildings cover is not something within Saga's control. Insurers are entitled to make their own risk assessments using specialist data, which may differ from publicly available information. Ms S was reasonably made aware that cover was not guaranteed at renewal.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website