Upheld: unfair claim decline; unfair application of policy exclusions complaint against HELVETIA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6189131 of 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim decline; unfair application of policy exclusions complaint against HELVETIA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6189131 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HELVETIA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD |
| Product | GAP / warranty insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim decline; unfair application of policy exclusions |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Helvetia must deal with Mr H's claim by either repairing the armchair or, if repair is not possible, replacing it in line with the remaining terms, conditions and limits of the policy. Helvetia must also pay Mr H £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of having the claim declined and having to challenge that decision. |
Summary
Mr H purchased a household warranty covering an armchair. After three years, the padding in the arms lost resilience and Mr H claimed on the policy. Helvetia declined the claim, citing wear and tear exclusions and stating the loss of resilience was not abnormal to industry expectation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding it unfair to offer specific cover for loss of resilience to foam and then exclude it because it occurs gradually. Helvetia failed to evidence that such deterioration within three years of normal use was normal or expected. The ombudsman required Helvetia to deal with the claim by repairing or replacing the chair and pay £100 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The policy explicitly covers 'Loss of resilience to foam and fibre interiors' as a cause of structural damage. The ombudsman found it unfair to offer specific cover for a peril and then exclude it simply because it occurs gradually, which is the natural way such loss occurs. Additionally, Helvetia's reliance on the exclusion for loss of resilience 'not abnormal to industry expectation' required Helvetia to evidence that such wear was normal for a three-year-old chair under normal use. The ombudsman found no such evidence had been provided, and it was not reasonable to expect padding to lose cushioning within three years of normal use.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HELVETIA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD, all decisions | 71 | 39% |
| GAP / warranty insurance, all decisions | 1,253 | 37% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website