Not upheld: alleged mis-selling and complaint about premium increase on renewal complaint against EUI Limited trading as Admiral

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A purchased a lifetime pet insurance policy from Admiral in April 2024 and was surprised by a 30% premium increase at renewal in March 2025, leading him to believe the policy had been mis-sold. He complained that Admiral's adviser provided inaccurate information about how the policy operated and the excess structure. Admiral upheld most complaint points and paid £80 compensation but did not uphold the complaint about the premium increase. The ombudsman found the policy was not mis-sold because the policy wording clearly stated it was an annually renewable policy with premiums increasing yearly due to vet cost inflation, pet aging, and claims history. The ombudsman upheld Admiral's position that the premium increase was calculated fairly according to its underwriting guide and that the £80 compensation was appropriate, declining to award additional compensation or require further action.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that lifetime pet policies are regulated by the FCA as annually renewable policies where premiums are reassessed each year based on vet costs, pet aging, claims history, and tax changes. The policy wording explicitly stated the policy lasts one year and premiums will increase annually. As the policy was sold on an 'unadvised basis' through a price comparison website, Admiral was only required to provide policy documentation and pricing information, not advice on suitability. Mr A had access to this documentation which clearly explained how the policy operated. While Admiral's adviser gave poor information during the renewal call, this did not constitute mis-selling at inception. The premium increase was calculated according to Admiral's underwriting guide, and the cheaper new quote online reflected that any conditions treated in the first year would be excluded as pre-existing conditions under a new policy, whereas renewal maintained continuous cover for ongoing conditions. Admiral responded quickly to Mr A's complaint and the £80 compensation was appropriate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website