Domestic & General Insurance Plc · DRN-6007966

The complaint Miss S complains that Domestic & General Insurance Plc (“D&G”) did not include cover for loss and theft on her gadget insurance policy, which meant a claim for a lost phone was not covered. What happened Miss S received a phone call from an agent for D&G. During the call she was offered a three month free trial of gadget insurance for her TV and other gadgets. She decided to take out the policy. She discussed including a mobile phone on the policy but didn’t have all the details for the phone, so wasn’t able to add it then. Miss S called back about a week later and added the phone to the policy. When she later tried to claim on the policy for the lost mobile phone, she was told the policy excluded cover for loss and theft, so the claim wasn’t covered. She complained but D&G didn’t change its decision. Our investigator said it wasn’t fair to decline the claim, as D&G had failed to provide clear information to Miss S about what the policy covered. He asked D&G to settle the claim, in line with the policy terms and subject to Miss S paying the premium that would have been paid, if cover for theft and loss had been included. D&G didn’t agree and requested an ombudsman’s decision. It said Miss S was given clear information about what the policy covered. So the complaint was referred to me to decide. I contacted both parties explaining I agreed with our investigator that the complaint should be upheld, but I thought a fair way to resolve the complaint would be for D&G to amend the policy, to include cover for loss and theft, and then consider the claim for in line with the relevant policy terms. I also said it should pay compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to Miss S. I invited comments and said if both parties agreed to this, the complaint might be resolved without the need for a formal decision. Miss S replied confirming her agreement but D&G hasn’t replied. So I’m proceeding with my decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. In making my decision I’ve taken into account the relevant the rules and guidance, which say:

-- 1 of 3 --

• Insurers must deal with claims promptly and fairly, and not unreasonably reject a claim. They should settle claims promptly once settlement terms are agreed. • Insurers have a duty to give consumers the information they need at the right time and in a way they can understand, so they can make good financial decisions, without having key information buried in lengthy terms and conditions. And the information should be clear, fair and not misleading. They should support their customers in making use of their policy without unreasonable barriers. Miss S spoke to D&G’s agents twice. During those calls, she should have been given clear information, so she understood what cover she had under the policy. I’ve listened to both calls and I don’t think she was given clear information. As a result, she took out a policy not realising the phone wasn’t covered for loss or theft. In the first call, Miss S said she wanted to add the mobile phone to the policy. She was asked if she wanted to include cover for loss and theft and said she did. But she didn’t have all the details of the phone so the call handler said she could call back another time when she had the relevant information and add the phone then. At that point, she was only covered for accidental damage and breakdown on TVs and other gadgets. In the second call, she removed one of the TVs and added the mobile phone. The call handler didn’t explain that the policy only covered accidental damage and breakdown, and didn’t ask if she wanted to add cover for loss and theft. Right at the end of the call, they ran through a summary of the terms and conditions, and mentioned an exclusion for loss and theft. I don’t think the information was clear to Miss S. She wasn’t given a proper explanation of what was covered or asked if she wanted to add loss and theft cover – as she had been in the first call. D&G says, where it is simply adding something to an existing policy, it doesn’t ‘upsell’ or ask the customer to add a different level of cover. As loss and theft would only apply to mobile phones and not to other appliances, the call handler wouldn’t be required to amend the policy. But this was a follow on from the earlier call, where Miss S had said she wanted to add cover for loss and theft. While that would not be available for other items, it would be available for a phone – and that was the very reason she wanted to add the phone to the policy. She would not have appreciated she did not have that cover unless it was explained to her. I accept what D&G says about a policyholder having some responsibility to understand their policy. But Miss S had asked for policy documents to be sent to her by post, so she could read through them carefully. D&G hasn’t been able to prove the updated policy documents were sent. As I’ve said, she should have been given the information she needed in a way she could understand, so she could make a good decision about the level of cover she was getting Taking everything into account, I don’t think that happened. As a result, Miss S didn’t appreciate that she was not covered for loss or theft of the phone. I’m satisfied that, if she’d been given clear information, she would have included cover for this. This was clearly something she wanted.

-- 2 of 3 --

If it had been included, Miss S would have been able to claim for a lost phone. So she should be able to claim for this. That doesn’t necessarily mean every such claim will be paid. The claim will need to be assessed in line with the policy terms and conditions. Not having cover for loss and theft when she thought she had it was very upsetting for Miss S – it was a key element of cover for her. So I think she should be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused. My final decision I uphold the complaint and direct Domestic & General Insurance Plc to • Amend the policy to include cover for loss and theft, subject to paying the relevant premium. • Consider the claim for the lost phone in line with the relevant policy terms. If the claim is covered, it should be settled in line with the relevant policy limits and excess. • Pay compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to Miss S. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss S to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Peter Whiteley Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --