Tradex Insurance Company PLC · DRN-6202736

The complaint A limited company that I’ll refer to as F is unhappy Tradex Insurance Company PLC provided policy documentation which listed a legal expenses provision. But it then refused to consider a claim saying the provision was incorrectly included as it stopped providing such cover a year earlier. All references to Tradex are intended to include the actions of any agents that have undertaken work on its behalf, as it accepts it is responsible for those actions. Mr T, a director of F brings the complaint on its behalf. What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat that in full here. Instead, I’ll set out below what I believe to be the main points. This list therefore should not be considered a full timeline or a full overview of everything that happened. • F took out a Tradex commercial motor policy through a broker, alongside other products. F was told Tradex’s policy included a legal expenses insurance provision, and this was listed on the policy schedule. • There was a fire at F’s property. F approached Tradex as it needed assistance with a legal claim that had been made against it. • Tradex advised that no cover was in place, there had been an error on the policy documentation as it referred to a provision that had been withdrawn from the commercial motor policy a year earlier. F was unhappy as it had been left in a position where it had no legal assistance when it had been led to believe that is what the policy included. As time went on there were further legal claims F said it would have made under the policy, so it has been disadvantaged by not having the benefit of the cover. An Investigator looked at the complaint and thought it should be upheld. He said Tradex should do the following: • Treat the legal expenses provision as if it was live for one year from 1 March 2019 • Consider any claims F wishes to make against the policy • Fund any claims that should be covered under its terms in line with the policy. Where this is no longer possible, Tradex should instead pay the likely Court award as determined by a suitable legal expert. • Pay F £700 compensation for the inconvenience caused to it. Tradex agreed with the proposed resolution. F did not accept the Investigator’s view and set out in detail the issues it had and the legal claims it wanted to make. F asked for various reassurances as to how the claims would be dealt with going forward and asked various questions that it said it required answers to. F asked that the Service direct it be allowed to instruct it’s own choice of lawyer from the

-- 1 of 4 --

outset or an independent expert be appointed to assist in its claims. Mr T also said he had been personally impacted by everything that happened and wanted to be compensated for this. Further developments I wrote to F on 13 February 2026 setting out my informal view that the resolution proposed by the Investigator was a fair and reasonable way to resolve the matters being considered under this complaint. I recognised that F was seeking to be reassured about what would happen going forward but explained I was not able to give those reassurances. The claims must be considered by Tradex in line with the terms and conditions and if any further issues arise then F would be free to complain about those. I acknowledged that these matters would have had an impact on Mr T but as this complaint was being brought on behalf of a legal entity, F, I can not consider the distress that has been caused to him personally. I also explained that under this complaint I am not able to consider the issues F has about how the broker sold the policy or deal with concerns it has about any other party. F responded saying it wished me to reconsider my position. It provided a substantial amount of correspondence which set outs the context of the legal claims it wished to be considered under the legal expenses provision, queries about how those claims maybe considered or managed under the policy and posing questions, it wishes this Service to answer and forward to various parties. It also raised many points about how it believes the policy was described to it by the broker and therefore its expectations about what it should be able to claim for. F also provided directions on how it wishes me to conduct my investigation into Tradex and how I should set out my decision on this matter 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. I understand F has strong views about what has happened. I want to assure it I’ve read and considered carefully everything it said. However, my findings focus on what I consider to be the central issues, and not all the points raised. This isn’t meant as a discourtesy. But the purpose of my decision isn’t to address every single point the parties have raised or to answer every question asked. My role is to consider the evidence presented by F and by Tradex, to reach what I think is a fair and reasonable decision based on the facts of the case. I’ve reviewed the file from the outset, including the additional points F has made in response to my provisional thoughts. I note F has provided directions to me on the issues it wants me to investigate. I must make it clear, however, that the scope of this complaint has already been set out and confirmed in previous correspondence with F and that will not be changing. This complaint only concerns the error in Tradex’s policy documentation regarding the provision of legal expenses cover and how that should be rectified. I’m aware F has many concerns about how Tradex has separately dealt with a damage claim at its property, interactions it has had with the broker that sold a range of policies to it, how other insurers and third parties have dealt with claims it has made under other policies, and about a decision that was previously made by this Service about one of those insurers.

-- 2 of 4 --

But I need to make it very clear that none of those other issues, or the specifics of the underlying legal claims F wishes to make are being considered here. So while F may have provided detail about them, I find they are not relevant to the decision I need to make. Furthermore, it is not part of our process to allow either consumers, or the businesses they are complaining about, to try to direct the course of our investigations, to dictate the issues they think we should consider or to provide questions they require the other party to answer to their satisfaction. If we were to allow either party to direct our investigations, it would compromise our independence and impartiality. Tradex has admitted its policy documentation contained an error in referring to a legal expenses provision it had previously withdrawn. To put things right it has agreed to treat F’s policy as if it did include that provision, on the same terms as it had previously provided. I think this is fair and reasonable as it puts F in the position it otherwise would have been. The policy was sold on the basis it included this cover, so that is the position F is now placed in. I am satisfied Tradex has provided a copy of the policy terms that were in place in the prior year and as such are those which otherwise would have been intended to be used had the policy provision not been withdrawn and the product changed. I am satisfied it is against these policy terms that any claim F wishes to make should be considered against. F has been provided with a copy of these terms. F has said it believes it was misled about the level of cover the policy would provide and has expressed disappointment that it believes some of the legal claims it had wanted assistance with may not be covered. Whether or not a claim is declined as the policy does not provide coverage for a certain circumstance, is not something I am considering here. It is now for F to make those claims to Tradex and for Tradex to consider them in line with the terms and conditions of the cover. Tradex should not apply any exclusion relating to late notification to avoid considering an otherwise valid claim. While I appreciate F has concerns about disclosing information to Tradex and also wants the costs of a lawyer to be covered in relation to preparing such information. I won’t be directing Tradex to cover these costs. I’m satisfied the remedy proposed is reasonable, if F wants to instruct a lawyer to prepare the claim(s) submission on its behalf then it would be its choice to do so. These are costs that wouldn’t usually be covered by a legal expenses policy and as such, I don’t think it is reasonable they be awarded here. F has similarly asked to be allowed to instruct a lawyer of its choosing in pursuing any valid legal claims and asks I make this direction to Tradex. This isn’t something I’m considering here, the first step is for Tradex to consider whether the legal claims are covered by the policy. If they are, then this is something the parties can discuss in line with what the policy provides. If F is later unhappy about the progress of any valid claim or the choice of lawyer instructed, this is something it can complain about to Tradex in the normal way. If for any reason a legal claim would have been covered by the policy but now isn’t possible to pursue, for example it is now time barred. Tradex should consider the impact its error has had on F. It should instruct a suitably qualified legal expert to assess the claim and the likelihood of any court award that may have been made in F’s favour. It should then compensate F an equivalent amount. I recognise Tradex’s error has had an impact on F. increasing the amount of correspondence it has needed to send. However, given it is unknown whether the legal claims would be covered under the policy I can’t consider all the consequential losses F has suggested I consider. It maybe it is now in no different position than it otherwise would have

-- 3 of 4 --

been. I think an award of £700 compensation fairly recognises the significant inconvenience F has been caused. As the complaint has been brought on behalf of a legal entity, F, I can’t consider any personal distress caused to Mr T. He is not an eligible complainant in this case. F’s concerns about the scope of cover the policy provided, whether that was suitable for its needs and how the policy was described to it, should be directed to the party that sold the policy to F. For the reasons set out above, I uphold this complaint. It is accepted Tradex made an error in its policy documentation and therefore it should put things right as I have set out below. Putting things right To put things right Tradex should do the following: • Treat the legal expenses provision as if it was live for one year from 1 March 2019. • Consider any claims F wishes to make against the terms and conditions of the provision. • Fund any claims that should be covered under those terms and conditions. Where this is no longer possible, Tradex should instead pay the likely Court award as determined by a suitable legal expert. • Pay F £700 compensation for the inconvenience caused to it. My final decision My final decision is I uphold F’s complaint against Tradex Insurance Company PLC. I direct it to put things right as I have set out in section above. Tradex Insurance Company PLC must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it F accepts my final decision. If it pays later than this it must also pay interest on the compensation from the deadline date for settlement to the date of payment at 8% a year simple. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask F to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Alison Gore Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --