Not upheld: mis-selling / failure to clearly identify underwriter complaint against BISL Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained that BISL Limited mis-sold him home insurance by failing to make clear that a different organisation, not his bank, was the actual underwriter. Mr P had paid BISL for 11 years believing his bank was providing the cover. The ombudsman found that BISL, as the administrator, provided annual renewal documents from 2019-2025 clearly setting out the different parties involved (the brand, administrator, and underwriter). Although the corporate structure was complex due to the bank ceasing to trade and being acquired, the ombudsman concluded Mr P received the insurance service he paid for and suffered no financial detriment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that consumer confusion about different parties in insurance provision is not uncommon, and that the changing corporate landscape (the bank ceasing to trade, being bought by another bank, and underwriters changing) made the situation complex. However, the key finding was that BISL provided annual renewal documents that clearly set out who was responsible for what, including the administrator, underwriter, and branding entity. The ombudsman concluded that Mr P received the insurance service he paid for and was not scammed, as he would have been covered if he had made a claim. The ombudsman noted this is the reality of the insurance industry.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website