Covea Insurance plc · DRN-5883968

The complaint Mr G complains about what Covea Insurance plc did at renewal of his pet insurance policy. What happened Mr G has had lifetime pet insurance for a number of years covering his dog (S). Since S was a puppy he’s been affected by allergy issues which have led to regular claims. Around two weeks before the policy was due to renew in March 2025 Covea emailed Mr G to say it would do so automatically and he didn’t need to take any action. It also said his payment details would be moved to a new partner who would now be collecting premiums on its behalf. At the end of February Covea emailed Mr G and said the bank details it held for him appeared to be incorrect. It asked if he could contact it to update that information. As it didn’t hear from him it emailed again in mid-March and said the policy had now lapsed but he should contact it if he did want to renew. Mr G’s daughter (Miss G) called Covea the following day (14 March). It confirmed there had been issues with payment information because the previous partner hadn’t provided up to date information so it was having to use details it held which weren’t always up to date. But it could look into getting the policy renewed. It asked Miss G whether there had been any changes to S’s health and whether she was looking to submit a claim within the next 14 days. Miss G answered no to both questions and the policy renewed. Covea says a claim was received from Mr G’s vet on 13 March 2025 and that was registered on 24 March. It thought that showed there had been a misrepresentation by Miss G when the policy was taken out and said it wouldn’t have agreed to reinstate the policy if it had been given correct information. So it cancelled the policy with effect from the renewal date and refunded the premium Mr G paid for it. Our investigator didn’t agree there had been a misrepresentation by Miss G. And in any event the key reason the policy didn’t renew was due to a change in payment provider which wasn’t something Mr G had any control over. If that hadn’t taken place the policy would have renewed as normal. She didn’t think Covea acted fairly in cancelling it. She said it should be reinstated on the same terms (and any cancellation marker removed from Mr G’’s record). Any claims made since the renewal date should be considered by Covea and 8% simple interest should be paid on amounts that Mr G had paid from the date of payment to the date of settlement. And it should pay Mr G £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he’d been caused by what Covea got wrong. Mr G agreed with what our investigator said. Covea didn’t agree. It said the bank details it held for Mr G weren’t correct (and believed this was because Mr G had changed these with the payment provider in March 2022). It had asked him to update these prior to renewal but he didn’t respond. When Miss G subsequently contacted it she confirmed she wasn’t looking to make a claim in the next 14 days but that wasn’t correct as a claim was then submitted. It thought there had been a misrepresentation here. So I need to reach a final decision.

-- 1 of 3 --

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. Covea has suggested there was a misrepresentation by Miss G when she called in March 2025 to try and renew the policy. So I’ve considered the relevant law which is the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act (CIDRA). This requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when taking out an insurance policy. The standard of care is that of a reasonable consumer. If a consumer fails to take reasonable care and makes a misrepresentation, the insurer has certain remedies if there is a qualifying misrepresentation, as defined in CIDRA. However, if there’s no qualifying misrepresentation those remedies aren’t available to it. In this case Miss G was asked two questions when she spoke to Covea. They were “Has there been any change to [S’s] health” and “Are you looking to submit a claim within the next 14 days”. Miss G answered ‘no’ to both. Covea hasn’t provided any evidence to show there had been a change to S’s health. And my understanding is he continued to have the same allergy issues which affected him since he was a puppy. I don’t think there was a misrepresentation by Miss G when answering the first question. In relation to the second question Covea says there was a misrepresentation because although Miss G answered ‘no’ to that a claim was then submitted within 14 days. That doesn’t appear to be what happened. In its final response to Miss G Covea said a claim submitted by her vet had been registered on 24 March. But that was actually received on 13 March. That’s the day before Miss G was asked whether she was looking to make a claim in the next 14 days. So it had already happened at that point. And it appears the claim the vet made was a continuation claim relating to S’s allergies which was made by them on a regular basis without involvement from Mr G or Miss G. I’m not satisfied there was a misrepresentation by Miss G in answering this question. That means the remedies in CIDRA (including policy cancellation) aren’t available to Covea. In any event I don’t think that’s the key issue here. Covea told Mr G in February 2025 his policy would automatically renew and he didn’t need to take any action. The reason that didn’t happen was because of its decision to change payment provider which meant it had to rely on historic bank details held on file. I appreciate it asked Mr G at the end of February to provide up to date information but it appears to have only sent one email (which I understand Mr G didn’t receive) and didn’t attempt to contact him in any other way. Nor did the email it did send make clear the policy would lapse unless correct information was provided. And the confirmation of that it did provide wasn’t sent until ten days after the renewal date (following which Miss G immediately contacted it to try and reinstate cover).

-- 2 of 3 --

I accept Covea did flag a potential issue here to Miss G in 2023 when she called about a missed payment and it asked if Mr G could call back to update the payment details it held. Covea says there wasn’t further contact following that. But I’m not sure that can be right because when Miss G contacted it in March 2025 it confirmed she was named as a secondary contact on the policy which wasn’t the case when she spoke to it in 2023. In any event the adviser said in 2023 there was no pressure to provide information and it just needed to be done prior to policy renewal in March 2024. As the policy renewed at that time without issue I think Mr G and Miss G could have thought there wasn’t a need for further action on their part. I’ve also taken into account that Covea was clearly aware there was a reasonably widespread problem with the payment information it held; it told Miss G in March 2025 “unfortunately this is happening with quite a few customers”. Given this was a problem which resulted from a decision it had taken (to change provider) I think there was a heightened onus on it to ensure customers weren’t disadvantaged by that. I think it should have done more to obtain up to date payment information from Mr G prior to the policy renewal date. And if it had done so I think it most likely that would have been provided as Miss G did contact it as soon as she was told the policy had lapsed. So regardless of whether there was then a misrepresentation if Covea had acted correctly the policy wouldn’t have lapsed in the first place and would have renewed as normal. Putting things right As I’m satisfied cover would have remained in place if Covea had acted correctly it will need to reinstate Mr G’’s policy from the 2025 renewal date. It will also need to consider any claims made by Mr G from that date against the terms of the policy. If any amounts are payable it will need to cover these and pay Mr G interest at 8% simple on any sums due to him which he’s already paid from the date of payment until the date of settlement. It will also need to remove any cancellation markers from his record. I also think what Covea got wrong will have caused Mr G avoidable distress and inconvenience and I agree £300 is an appropriate amount to recognise that. So Covea will also need to pay him that. My final decision I’ve decided to uphold this complaint. Covea Insurance plc will need to put things right by doing what I’ve said in this decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 18 March 2026. James Park Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --