Partially upheld: data breach and inadequate compensation for distress caused complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited trading as Allianz
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6318676 of 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00. data breach and inadequate compensation for distress caused complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited trading as Allianz. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6318676 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited trading as Allianz |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | data breach and inadequate compensation for distress caused |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Pay £100 compensation in addition to the 12-month subscription to identity theft protection service already offered |
Summary
Mr F complained to the FOS about Allianz after his motor insurance policy data was compromised in a cyber-attack. Allianz notified him of the breach, provided explanation, apologised, and offered a 12-month identity theft protection subscription. Mr F sought greater explanation and additional compensation for the stress caused. The ombudsman found Allianz's response reasonable but partially upheld the complaint, ordering £100 compensation in addition to the identity theft protection service, recognising the significant worry and stress the breach had caused Mr F.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While Allianz responded reasonably by notifying Mr F promptly, providing explanation, and offering identity theft protection, the ombudsman found that additional compensation was fair because the breach had clearly caused Mr F significant stress and worry. The ombudsman's role is to put consumers back in the position they should have been in but for the error, and compensation for distress was appropriate in these particular circumstances.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited trading as Allianz, all decisions | 2 | 75% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website