i4me Limited · DRN-5921684

The complaint Mr P complains that i4me Limited (“i4me”), an insurance broker, has failed to properly arrange a legal expenses insurance (“LEI”) policy. And he said this has caused him issues when he sought to make a claim. Any reference to Mr P or i4me includes respective agents or representatives. What happened The background of this complaint is well known between the parties, so I’ve provided a summary of events. • In March 2025 Mr P took out a property and LEI policy through i4me. The underwriter and administrator of the policy was Company M. • Following an incident with his neighbour, Mr P sought to make an LEI claim on his Company M policy. When he contacted Company M, Mr P has said that it had no record of his details. So, Company M wouldn’t go ahead with a claim. • On 12 August 2025 Mr P complained to i4me raising concerns about Company M not having a record of his policy. Later that day, i4me issued a final response letter saying it had arranged his policy in line with his request and any fault regarding his details lay with Company M. i4me said it had contacted Company M on his behalf and asked it to reach out to progress the claim he was seeking to make. • On 13 August 2025 I understand Company M contacted Mr P and provided him with a claim form. And i4me says it emailed Mr P shortly after to confirm Company M would be considering a claim. • Mr P brought his complaint to this Service for an independent review, saying i4me had failed to pass on his details to Company M when arranging the policy. i4me said it had made no mistakes in arranging the policy, and Company M had confirmed it was initially unable to trace Mr P’s details, but then it found these after he’d sent his schedule across. • Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint, saying: o She’d been provided with a policy certificate confirming LEI cover was live and arranged in line with Mr P’s request. o Company M had emailed i4me and been clear the policy was arranged, but it had simply not been able to find the policy within the first call with Mr P. But it had found his details after he sent his schedule across. o i4me had acted promptly dealing with the matter when the issue was raised. • Mr P disagreed, saying it wasn’t his fault Company M couldn’t find his policy, and he held i4me responsible. And he challenged why he should need to send his policy schedule for Company M to find his policy. This didn’t change the investigator’s mind, so the matter has been passed to me for an

-- 1 of 2 --

Ombudsman’s final decision. Since the case has been with us, Mr P has said he’s experienced a similar issue with a claim regarding a television, where the underwriter hasn’t had a record of his details. Our investigator has explained that this matter falls outside of the scope of this complaint. 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. Having done so, I’m not upholding it. I’ll explain why. My focus in this decision is the actions of i4me acting as a broker regarding the matter addressed within its August 2025 final response letter. Any complaint about the events that have followed, or Company M, fall outside of the scope of this decision. First, I’ll consider whether i4me failed to arrange the LEI policy in question. i4me has provided me with appropriate policy documentation that reflects that a policy was set up. And it has provided me with an email from Company M which reflects that it found Mr P on its records after he provided it with his schedule. From this, I’m satisfied the policy was arranged and i4me hasn’t made any mistakes or errors here. While I understand Company M may have had difficulty in finding Mr P’s details when he spoke to it, I’m satisfied this wasn’t the fault of i4me. I say this particularly given Company M at no point has disputed that Mr P’s policy was in place, it simply has said it couldn’t find his details until he sent across his schedule. Mr P has indicated that i4me should take responsibility for this and said he shouldn’t have to provide his schedule for his insurer to find his policy. I disagree with him that i4me should take responsibility for Company M’s actions, as it’s an entirely separate business and I’ve been given nothing to indicate it could’ve foreseen this issue. Furthermore, any complaint about Company M requesting his schedule would need to be brought to Company M’s attention, not i4me. From what I’ve seen, i4me acted quickly. And soon after the issue was raised with it, it had reached out to Company M to move things on. Overall, for all of these reasons, I’m satisfied i4me hasn’t done anything wrong, and so I’m not upholding this complaint. My final decision For the above reasons, I’m not upholding this complaint. And I don’t require that i4me Limited needs to take any further action. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Jack Baldry Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --