Astrenska Insurance Limited · DRN-6231206

The complaint Mr B is unhappy with how Astrenska Insurance Limited handled a claim on his income protection policy. What happened Mr B took out an income protection policy on 23 February 2024. The policy was underwritten by Astrenska and has an initial exclusion period (IEP) until June 2024 for claims where the policyholder was aware of a risk of unemployment. Mr B became redundant in 2025, so he made a claim on his policy. Astrenska declined cover because they said Mr B was aware there was a risk he could be made unemployed in April 2024. They said this was due to the widespread media articles about the closure of stores for his company during the exclusion period. Mr B said he knew about changes within the company, but he was told employment in his area was safe. He said it wasn’t until January 2025 that he became aware that his store was closing, and his role was at risk of redundancy. He the received formal written notification on 5 February 2025. Astrenska argued that as Mr B’s role was at management level he would’ve been aware of the risk of store closure. Mr B said this was unreasonable as he’d just been through a recruitment process for a promotion in his area, so he had no reason to think his store would be closing. Our investigator initially said Astrenska had fairly applied the exclusion. Then on further review of the evidence, she upheld the complaint and said Astrenska should reassess Mr B’s claim. Mr B accepted this outcome, but Astrenska disagreed. In summary they said: • The policy doesn’t require formal notice of redundancy during the IEP, it only requires awareness of circumstances creating a risk of unemployment • Given the managerial nature of Mr B’s role and its oversight responsibilities, it is inconceivable that he wasn’t aware of the structural changes occurring within the organisation and the associated employment risks • The articles in the media demonstrate an ongoing pattern of restructuring, store closures and operational changes at Mr B’s employer both prior to and during the IEP. The case has been passed to me to make 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. The relevant rules and industry guidelines say an insurer has a responsibility to handle claims promptly and fairly and shouldn’t reject a claim unreasonably.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr B’s policy has an initial exclusion period that ended on 21 June 2026. The policy terms say claims are excluded where, during this time, the policyholder: “is made aware that there is a risk you could be made unemployed even if the formal notification of your unemployment was issued outside of this period.” Astrenska has relied on a number of press articles referencing reported pending redundancies and store closures at Mr B’s countrywide company. Based on these articles, they concluded Mr B was aware he was at risk of redundancy in April 2024. But I don’t think that is fair. I’ll explain why. I don’t think Astrenska has fairly assessed the evidence from Mr B’s former employer. I’ve listened to their call and Astrenska asked if Mr B only became aware of his risk of unemployment in 2025, and the employer confirms that is correct. The employer later confirmed that the first announcement to Mr B was 28 January 2025, but Astrenska don’t appear to have given any weight to this confirmation. The employer also confirms that as Mr B was a manager, any change in contracts reported in the media wouldn’t have affected him. They also confirmed that not all the stores under the company had closed - some remained open, so I think Mr B’s argument that he didn’t think the press articles were relevant to his specific employment are plausible. Mr B has provided consistent and persuasive detailed submissions about the timeline of events for his particular role, but I’m not persuaded Astrenska has fairly considered this or reasonably addressed it in their response to his claim. Mr B has always acknowledged the general press articles about his company, but he has explained he was assured by his manager that his employment would continue. He also told Astrenska that he was in the final interview stage for a promotion to Area Manager and this interview was scheduled for the day after he was informed of the risk to redundancy to his role. I think this supports the view that he believed his career at the company would continue and I’m not persuaded he was aware he was at risk of redundancy. Astrenska hasn’t addressed Mr B’s submission about his promotion during the relevant period and I don’t think that is reasonable. Astrenska appear to have assumed that because Mr B’s role was at management level, he would’ve been aware of the risk of his store’s closure. But I don’t think this is fair as sometimes it’s only the highest level of management that are aware of pending changes, especially at large companies like Mr B’s employer. And as Mr B had just been through a recruitment process for a promotion in his area, I’m not persuaded he had inside knowledge that stores in his area would be closing. Mr B has consistently said he only became aware in January 2025 when he was told over the telephone that his store was closing, and his role was at risk of redundancy. He has provided evidence to show this was then followed up in writing on 5 February 2025. I think this written letter is persuasive to show its likely Mr B was only verbally notified of the store closure shortly before this date. I’m not persuaded by Astrenska’s argument that Mr B was aware of his unemployment 10 months prior to this formal notification letter being sent. Overall, I’m not persuaded that the articles in the public domain are enough to show Mr B was aware his role was at risk of redundancy. So I don’t think Astrenska fairly declined cover based on the available evidence.

-- 2 of 3 --

Putting things right Astrenska Insurance Limited need to put things right by: • Reassessing Mr B’s claim in line with the remaining terms and conditions of the policy. My final decision I uphold this complaint against Astrenska Insurance Limited and direct them to put things right in the way I’ve outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Georgina Gill Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --