Veste

Upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Domestic & General Insurance Plc

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6346160 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Domestic & General Insurance Plc. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6346160
Decision date2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00
FirmDomestic & General Insurance Plc
ProductOther regulated product
Claim typeMotor insurance, claim handling
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyD&G must consider the claim in line with their policy terms and conditions, and pay Mrs S £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the misinformation and failure to consider the claim sooner.

Summary

Mrs S held a D&G insurance policy covering accidental TV damage that expired on 3 November 2025. She claimed on 6 November 2025 for damage that occurred before expiry, but D&G incorrectly refused to consider the claim, stating the policy had expired. After FOS involvement, Mrs S provided evidence of the damage and when it occurred, but D&G still refused to consider it. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding D&G's misinformation and refusal to examine the evidence unfair, and required them to consider the claim in line with policy terms and pay £100 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

D&G acted unfairly by incorrectly stating on multiple occasions that Mrs S could not register a claim once the policy expired, despite her being clear from the outset that the damage occurred whilst on cover. D&G's refusal to consider the claim without examining the evidence provided was unreasonable. Mrs S's explanation for the delay in providing evidence was fair, as D&G had refused to consider the claim initially and had not requested the evidence. D&G should now consider the claim in accordance with the policy terms and conditions.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Domestic & General Insurance Plc, all decisions66531%
Motor insurance, claim handling, all decisions12,93732%
Other regulated product, all decisions47,44930%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website