Upheld: policy downgrade, poor customer service, inadequate communication, failure to explain policy changes complaint against British Gas Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P took out a Homecare Four policy with British Gas Insurance Limited in December 2024 that included boiler and central heating cover. Following an engineer's visit on 4 February 2025 (the first service visit under the new policy), British Gas removed the boiler and central heating cover from his policy without his request or clear explanation. The engineer's summary sheet provided to Mr P contained only a cryptic 'fv' notation with no explanation that the inspection had failed. When Mr P complained, British Gas provided confusing and misleading responses, failed to clearly explain the reasons for the downgrade, and continued contacting him by phone despite his explicit request for email contact only. While the ombudsman found British Gas were contractually entitled to remove the cover based on the failed first visit inspection, the extremely poor communication and customer service warranted compensation of £300 rather than the £55 initially offered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While British Gas were contractually entitled to remove boiler and central heating cover following the failed first visit inspection, they provided extremely poor customer service and communication. The engineer's summary sheet left for Mr P contained no meaningful explanation of the failed inspection, only the cryptic abbreviation 'fv' which British Gas acknowledged would be meaningless to the consumer. The subsequent correspondence was confusing and misleading, with references to access issues that were not clearly explained. Most significantly, when Mr P raised a complaint, British Gas failed to provide a clear and full explanation of why his cover was downgraded, and they continued to contact him by phone despite his explicit request for email contact only. This pattern of poor communication and failure to address his complaint adequately caused Mr P significant distress and inconvenience beyond what would be expected from a technical policy decision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website