Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Lloyds Bank Insurance Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms R complained that Lloyds Bank Insurance Services Limited mis-sold her a legal expenses insurance (LEI) policy and failed to handle a dispute about her LEI claim. The LEI was an optional add-on to her buildings insurance policy, initially provided by Company D and then Company A from 2021. Ms R felt caught between the two providers when neither accepted responsibility for her claim and believed Lloyds should intervene. The ombudsman found that the policy was sold on a non-advised basis with clear terms, and that Lloyds was not responsible for claims handling by separate FCA-regulated entities. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Company A and Company D are FCA-regulated firms in their own right, and complaints about their claims handling should be directed to them, not Lloyds. The ombudsman was satisfied the policy was sold on a non-advised basis with clear terms and was not mis-sold. The provider change at renewal was not a material change as the same cover remained in place, and even if clarity could have been improved, this would not have materially impacted the customer's position given both providers disputed responsibility regardless.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website