Not upheld: mis-selling / failure to disclose key insurance terms and conditions complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs D complained that NatWest failed to inform them during a March 2025 branch visit that they would need to pay an age extension premium (£75 per person) and declare pre-existing medical conditions to be covered by their Reward Platinum travel insurance. After Mrs D was diagnosed with a serious medical condition and their June 2025 trip was cancelled, their insurance claim was rejected because they had not paid the premium or declared the condition. The ombudsman found that NatWest had sent annual eligibility statements clearly setting out these requirements since at least 2014, and that branch staff testimony indicated these requirements were likely mentioned during the visit. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that NatWest had fulfilled its regulatory obligation to send annual eligibility statements that clearly outlined the age extension premium requirement and the need to declare pre-existing medical conditions. The branch staff testimony was found to be specific, consistent, and plausible, indicating that the staff member had mentioned the age limit and medical condition disclosure requirements during the March 2025 visit. The fact that Mr and Mrs D had previously paid the age extension premium demonstrated they were aware of this requirement at some point. The ombudsman concluded that NatWest had not provided incorrect or misleading information and therefore should not be held responsible for the uninsured losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website