Domestic & General Insurance Plc · DRN-5859348

The complaint Ms A is unhappy with how she was sold a Domestic & General Insurance Plc (D&G) policy for a washing machine. Mr M is representing Ms A, so for ease I’ll refer to him where appropriate. What happened Ms A took out a policy in May 2019, but in April 2025 Mr M contacted D&G. He complained Ms A no longer had the washing machine and therefore couldn’t benefit from the policy. Mr M also asked if there could be a retrospective offer that could be made, as the washing machine had been defective and been replaced. Mr M said Ms A wouldn’t have had the capacity to understand what kind of agreement she’d entered because she was elderly and vulnerable. D&G responded to the complaint. In its final response letter, it offered to refund the last 12 months’ premiums. It said it would consider a further refund, if evidence could be provided a new washing machine had been purchased and the old one disposed of. Mr M remained unhappy with D&G’s response and referred his concerns to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He said when the policy was taken out, the washing machine would have been covered by the manufacturers’ warranty, so he didn’t consider the D&G policy was also required. Mr M said the policy shouldn’t have been sold to Ms A because of this and that D&G also hadn’t considered Ms A was vulnerable. These concerns were reviewed by one of our investigators who said the offer from D&G was fair, given that due to the passage of time, it wasn’t possible to see how the policy had been sold. This meant he couldn’t be sure if D&G ought to have done more at the point the policy was sold. Mr M didn’t accept this conclusion, so this matter has been referred to me to decide. 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 the first instance, I’d like to say that I can understand why Mr M is so frustrated with the situation he’s discovered and how this has impacted Ms A. However, for me to say D&G ought to do more than it has already offered to do, I’d need to be persuaded it had acted unfairly. And having considered the information provided, I’ve reached the same overall conclusion as the investigator and for largely the same reasons. The policy was taken out in May 2019, almost six years before the complaint was made. Neither Mr M nor D&G have confirmed how or when it was taken out. This means it’s not possible to say that D&G acted unfairly, or ought to have taken additional steps to have ensured the policy was right for Ms A at the point it began.

-- 1 of 2 --

And whilst I note what Mr M has said about the washing machine also being covered by a manufacturer warranty, it’s worth noting the D&G policy provided cover for accidental damage, which may not have been provided under the same warranty. So, it’s not the case that I can say, for certain, the two warranties provided like-for-like cover and Ms A couldn’t have benefitted from the D&G policy, if required. Though I note Mr M feels there wasn’t a sufficient difference between the two to warrant the D&G policy being taken out. When making his complaint to D&G, Mr M said that Ms A wouldn’t have been able to understand the paperwork it sent to her about the renewals, or the contract she entered into. I can understand the concerns he raised. But I’m also satisfied, from what I’ve seen, that D&G weren’t aware of Ms A’s vulnerability until he told them she wouldn’t have been aware of what she was paying for. I note Mr M said Ms A had several carers who were helping her with things like her medication, so I can understand this was a difficult situation. But I can’t say, on balance, D&G ought reasonably to have been aware of Ms A’s vulnerability until it was drawn to its attention by Mr M, given we can’t be sure how the policy was taken about, given the passage of time. But I’m persuaded D&G sent renewal paperwork to Ms A’s home each year until the policy was cancelled, which is what it was required to do. I’m satisfied it was fair for D&G to offer a refund for the last 12 months premiums. It sent renewal documents to the address held for Ms A, and I think it’s telling that as soon as Mr M made it aware the policy was no longer needed, it offered a refund to put things right. I’m aware it offered a further months’ refund when it could be shown a replacement washing machine had been purchased before the request for the cancellation was made. If Mr M can provide further evidence to show another washing machine had been purchased for Ms A’s property before the one in February 2024, he can send that to D&G for consideration. In the round, I’m satisfied the offer made by D&G is fair in the circumstances, and I’m not going to require it to do anything more. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms A to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Emma Hawkins Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --