Zurich Insurance PLC · DRN-6252659

The complaint Mr Z has complained that he was unable to access Zurich Insurance PLC’s online portal, which prevented him from making a claim on a travel insurance policy. What happened Mr Z had booked a trip, due to begin on 25 June 2025. Unfortunately, he had to cancel it due to ill-health. He therefore attempted to access the online portal to make a claim for unrecoverable accommodation costs. However, after inputting his details on multiple occasions, he would receive a message saying that no policy was found that matched those details. In response to the complaint, Zurich explained that there had been a wide-ranging technical issue that had prevented a number of customers from logging into the site over a prolonged period. It apologised for that, and for taking 14 weeks to respond to his complaint, and offered him £200 compensation for the impact of the poor level of service. Our investigator thought that Zurich had acted reasonably in response to the complaint. Mr Z disagrees and so the complaint has been passed to me for a 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. I’ve carefully considered the obligations placed on Zurich by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Its ‘Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook’ (ICOBS) includes the requirement for Zurich to handle claims promptly and fairly, and to not unreasonably decline a claim. The complaint involves the actions of the claim administrators, acting on behalf of Zurich. To be clear, when referring to Zurich in this decision I am also referring to any other entities acting on its behalf. Mr Z originally asked for the actions of the seller of the policy to also be dealt with as part of this complaint. However, our investigator has previously explained why it isn’t possible to include that third party in this complaint. Mr Z tried unsuccessfully to access the portal over a few weeks. He emailed Zurich on 16 July 2025, who replied to say that the issue had been passed to its IT team. It also said that there was no record of a claim, however, there was no time limit for him to make it and that he could take as long as needed. It said that an alternative method of submitting the claim would be to complete a claim form and return it by email or post. I appreciate that Mr Z didn’t feel comfortable sending personal information by email or in the post and felt that the portal would be more secure. However, it was reasonable for Zurich to suggest those alternatives as a way of getting the claim moving.

-- 1 of 2 --

It is the case that the policy wording only mentions making the claim online. However, it also provides a phone number for people to call, which is an alternative for those that don’t want to, or can’t, make the claim online. When calling, those people would be told about filling in and returning the complaint form. Therefore, I’m not persuaded Zurich acted outside the policy terms by providing him with an alternative route to make his claim. Even if it were, that would be reasonable, as a pro-active response to the problem. Mr Z later received some communication intended for a different claimant, which wouldn’t have inspired confidence, and would have reinforced his sense that making the claim in any way other than via the portal wasn’t secure. But in its email of 16 July 2025, Zurich hadn’t insisted that he use the suggested alternative method, and I can understand why he was reluctant to do so. Therefore, whilst inconvenient, he could just wait for the IT issues to be resolved. He’d kept trying the portal and discovered that it was working again on 6 August 2025. Mr Z would like the policy premiums to be refunded as he said that the product didn’t function when required. However, there was no issue with the policy itself, just the mechanism by which he wanted to submit his claim. The policy remained active and he had the benefit of the cover it provided. Therefore, it wouldn’t be appropriate to refund the premium. He’s also said that he would like the cost of the cancelled accommodation refunded as he was unable to recover it through the claims process. I can’t agree with Mr Z that the evidence shows his claim as being declined, just because of the misleading and contradictory information he received at the start of the claims process. He was only temporarily prevented from using the online portal. He’s been in a position to make a claim, by returning the claim form, since 16 July 2025. And he’s been able to make a claim via the portal since 16 August 2025. Any delay since then has not been due to Zurich. As I understand it, there is an open claim, but Zurich is awaiting additional information from Mr Z before it can be assessed. If he wishes to continue with the claim, he should contact Zurich directly if he has any doubts about what is required and how he can provide it. If he is unhappy with the outcome of the claim, it’s open to him to make a new complaint about that. I’ve thought very carefully about what Mr Z has said, particularly in relation to the higher amount of compensation he feels the complaint should attract. However, as an alternative dispute resolution service, our awards are more modest than he might expect. Overall, based on the available evidence, I’m satisfied that the £200 offered by Zurich is fair and reasonable compensation for the impact of not being able to access the portal and the delay in responding to his complaint. It follows that I do not uphold the complaint. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I do not uphold the complaint. However, Zurich Insurance PLC should pay the £200 compensation now if it hasn’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr Z to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Carole Clark Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --