Not upheld: Other regulated complaint against A-PLAN HOLDINGS, trading as Howden

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Howden offered to renew his home insurance at approximately £4,500 when he found a comparable policy elsewhere for approximately £1,500. Howden explained that it operates a panel of insurers and had searched this panel for the most competitive option, which was the policy offered through insurer B. Howden stated it did not work with the company through which Mr A obtained the cheaper policy and that the same insurer would charge at least £5,000 through Howden's panel. The ombudsman found that Howden's terms of business clearly limited its search to its panel of insurers rather than the entire market, and that this limitation was consistently communicated to Mr A. The ombudsman determined that Howden fulfilled its regulatory requirements and terms of business by providing the most competitive option available within its panel, and that the availability of cheaper policies outside the panel does not demonstrate unfair conduct.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Howden operated as an independent intermediary with a defined panel of insurers, which is standard industry practice. Howden's terms of business clearly stated it would search its range of insurers, not the entire market, and this limitation was reiterated in policy documents each year. The ombudsman determined that Howden fulfilled its regulatory requirements by providing clear, fair and non-misleading information and by searching its panel for the most competitive option available. The fact that Mr A could obtain a cheaper policy outside Howden's panel does not demonstrate that Howden acted unfairly, as different insurers and distribution channels legitimately offer different products at different prices. The ombudsman was satisfied that Howden provided the best option available within its panel and acted in accordance with its terms of business and regulatory obligations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website