Not upheld: policy cancellation upon market withdrawal complaint against Maiden Life Försäkrings AB, UK Branch
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6294642 of 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00. policy cancellation upon market withdrawal complaint against Maiden Life Försäkrings AB, UK Branch. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6294642 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Maiden Life Försäkrings AB, UK Branch |
| Product | insurance |
| Claim type | policy cancellation upon market withdrawal |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr P, Mr P and Mrs P complained that Maiden Life unfairly cancelled their Family Protection Plan when withdrawing from the UK market in November 2025. The policy was a group insurance policy held by their credit union since 2005, underwritten by Maiden Life since 2022, providing £6000 death benefits. Maiden Life provided over 30 days' notice of cancellation and had extended its original May 2025 withdrawal deadline to November 2025 at the credit union's request to allow time to find alternative cover. The ombudsman found that Maiden Life acted fairly and in accordance with the policy terms, took reasonable steps to minimise disruption, and did not treat the complainants unfairly compared to other members. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Although the policy terms permitted Maiden Life to cancel with 30 days' notice, the ombudsman applied a fairness test considering all circumstances. Maiden Life acted appropriately by: (1) providing more than the required 30 days' notice; (2) extending the original May 2025 deadline to November 2025 at the credit union's request to allow time to find alternative cover; and (3) treating all members equally as part of a complete market withdrawal rather than targeting specific individuals. The policy was a monthly renewable term product, not a guaranteed whole-of-life product, so cancellation was contractually permissible. No refund of premiums was warranted as the insurer was providing cover during the policy period and remained at risk of paying claims.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Maiden Life Försäkrings AB, UK Branch, all decisions | 4 | 0% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website