Not upheld: policy cancellation / unfair treatment complaint against Maiden Life Försäkrings AB, UK Branch
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6298961 of 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00. policy cancellation / unfair treatment complaint against Maiden Life Försäkrings AB, UK Branch. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6298961 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Maiden Life Försäkrings AB, UK Branch |
| Product | insurance |
| Claim type | policy cancellation / unfair treatment |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman declined to require refund of premiums paid, as the policy provided the cover it promised and would have responded to any valid claim while in force. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs D complained that Maiden Life unfairly cancelled their family protection plan policy when withdrawing from the UK market in November 2025, after they had been insured since 2008. The policy was a group insurance policy held by their credit union, with Mr and Mrs D as beneficiaries. Maiden Life provided more than 30 days' notice as required by the policy terms and had extended the original withdrawal deadline by six months at their agent's request to allow time to find alternative cover. The ombudsman found that Maiden Life acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances, complied with the policy terms, and took appropriate steps to minimise disruption. The complaint was not upheld and no refund of premiums was ordered.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Although the policy terms allowed Maiden Life to cancel with 30 days' notice, the ombudsman considered whether this was fair and reasonable in all circumstances. The ombudsman found that Maiden Life acted appropriately by: (1) taking over the policy in 2022 when the previous insurer withdrew; (2) giving a year's advance notice of their intention to leave the UK market; (3) extending the deadline by six months at their agent's request to allow time to find alternative cover; and (4) providing more than the required 30 days' notice. The ombudsman concluded this was consistent with the Consumer Duty to avoid foreseeable harm and that Mr and Mrs D were not singled out or treated differently from other members.
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