Upheld: service failure, mis-information regarding policy status, failure to provide promised callback complaint against Hood Travel Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs O complained about poor service from Hood Travel Limited when Mrs O attempted to declare a change in health (swollen thumb) after taking out a single trip travel insurance policy. Mrs O made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Hood by phone and email before her holiday. Hood incorrectly informed her whilst abroad that the policy was void, later correcting this and offering to add the medical condition retroactively. However, Hood failed to call Mrs O at the time she requested (10am GMT on 9 June 2025) despite promising to do so. Hood initially offered £30 compensation and a premium refund. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Mrs O's account credible, accepting that Mr and Mrs O experienced significant distress and vulnerability whilst abroad believing they had no cover, and that Hood failed to provide adequate support. The ombudsman directed Hood to increase compensation to £250.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found Mrs O's account of making numerous contact attempts plausible and persuasive based on contemporaneous emails. The ombudsman accepted that Mr and Mrs O would have been worried and vulnerable being told the policy was void whilst abroad. Although Hood subsequently corrected this information, the ombudsman found that Hood failed to call Mrs O at the requested time despite offering to do so, and provided no evidence of attempting to reschedule. The ombudsman considered that Mr and Mrs O had already made several contact attempts and were away on holiday, so it was reasonable they did not repeatedly attempt further contact. Hood's own acceptance that it should have done more to support the customers was taken into account. The ombudsman determined that whilst the premium refund was appropriate, additional compensation of £250 was fair and reasonable for the distress and inconvenience caused.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website