Upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Legal and General Assurance Society Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6297212 of 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00. Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Legal and General Assurance Society Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6297212 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Legal and General Assurance Society Limited |
| Product | Life / income protection |
| Claim type | Home insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | L&G must pay Mr H £150 compensation for poor communication. |
Summary
Mr H complained about delays and poor communication from L&G regarding his income protection claim made in June 2025. L&G offered £150 compensation for confusing communication but Mr H believed this was insufficient given the significant mental health, family and financial impact. The ombudsman found that while L&G's communication was confusing, the delays were primarily caused by the GP's slow responses to information requests, and L&G had proactively chased the GP throughout. The ombudsman upheld the complaint but agreed that L&G's offer of £150 compensation was reasonable and fair in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that L&G progressed the claim as quickly as they could and were not responsible for delays caused by the GP's slow responses. L&G proactively chased the GP by phone and email throughout the process. However, L&G did provide confusing communication to Mr H during an already distressing time. The £150 compensation offered by L&G was deemed reasonable to recognise the impact of poor communication, as L&G did not cause unnecessary delays up until their final response in November 2025.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Legal and General Assurance Society Limited, all decisions | 1,112 | 18% |
| Home insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 25,670 | 38% |
| Life / income protection, all decisions | 10,704 | 20% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website