Inter Partner Assistance SA · DRN-6189863

The complaint Miss M complains that Inter Partner Assistance SA (IPA) declined her travel insurance claim and about its service. My references to IPA include its agents. What happened Miss M had single trip travel insurance, insured by IPA. Her pre-booked Eurostar train on her return journey to London was cancelled due to train track closure. Miss M says no train tickets were available for the next day so she booked a flight to the UK and returned about 26 hours later than planned. Eurostar paid for some of the extra costs she incurred but not the cost of the flight or taxis she had to take, which she claimed on the policy. IPA initially declined the claim and Miss M complained. IPA’s final response letter said the reason it had given for the claim decline was wrong, but the claim still wasn’t covered under the ‘Delayed departure’ policy terms as the train was cancelled and not rebooked, so there was no delay. Also, the effected trip was on Miss M’s inbound journey to the UK so she wasn’t covered under the abandonment policy terms. Miss M complained to us. In summary she said: • IPA’s acknowledgement that its original decline reason was wrong highlighted that the claim wasn’t considered properly and IPA’s subsequent decision may also be wrong. • Her train was cancelled due to a mechanical or technical issue affecting the service and she incurred unavoidable additional expenses to get home. The disruption was outside of her control and is the type of situation travel insurance is designed for. • The policy doesn’t clearly explain that inbound cancellations are excluded from cover, nor does it explain that a cancellation caused by a mechanical breakdown, an insured event, wasn’t covered. The policy wording is ambiguous so the interpretation should favour the consumer. • IPA’s decision was contrary to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) principle of treating customers fairly. • As well as IPA paying her claim in full it should pay her compensation for her distress, inconvenience, financial loss, and significant time she’s spent challenging a policy that should have protected her in such circumstances. • She used her credit card to pay for the return flight. She’d been unable to travel back home in time to go into work so had missed pay. The situation has caused her great stress as the extra unplanned costs have meant financial difficulty. When IPA sent its file to us as part of the investigation it made an offer. IPA said under the policy terms Miss M was entitled to the delayed departure benefit as the trains weren’t operating for at least 12 hours. As the exact length of delay to the next train wasn’t known IPA offered to pay the benefit for a 24 hour delay, £20. It said there was no cover for the costs Miss M claimed.

-- 1 of 4 --

Miss M rejected IPA’s offer. She said she’d tried to exchange her train ticket but there were no seats available for the next day. She had no choice but to book the earliest available and cheapest flight otherwise she would have had to pay for two more nights’ accommodation and other expenses and missed more work. Our Investigator said IPA had made a reasonable offer to settle Miss M’s claim. Miss M disagrees and wants an Ombudsman’s decision. She gave more detail to the reasons why she considered IPA should pay her claim. She added that: • The delay benefit is to assist with telephone calls and refreshments during a delay. It’s not a fair response to the loss of her booked train and her having to incur additional costs. • The ‘Delayed departure’ policy terms provide cover for irrecoverable costs where, following cancellation and a delay of at least 12 hours, no suitable alternative public transport is provided within 12 hours of the scheduled departure time. • IPA should pay compensation for the issues with its claim handling particularly its delay in making an offer. Our Investigator suggested to Miss M that he may be able to mediate that IPA pay £75 compensation for her distress and inconvenience due to it not making an offer sooner. Miss M wouldn’t accept that amount so our Investigator didn’t try to mediate with IPA. 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 understand from what Miss M has said that the person she travelled with also has a policy with IPA which he claimed against. This decision is only about Miss M’s complaint about IPA’s decision and service. She held her policy in her sole name so she is the only relevant complainant for this complaint. I’ve considered all the points Miss M has made. I won’t address all her points in my findings because I’ll focus on the reasons why I’ve made my decision and the key points which I think are relevant to the outcome of this complaint. The relevant regulator’s rules say that insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly and they mustn’t turn down (or settle) claims unreasonably. I’m sorry to disappoint Miss M but I’m satisfied that IPA has now made a reasonable offer to settle her complaint and I don’t think it needs to pay her compensation for her distress and inconvenience. I’ll explain why. The relevant policy terms for the claim are in the ‘Delayed departure’ section which say: ‘What is covered If you have arrived at the terminal and have checked in, or attempted to check in for your prebooked flight, sea crossing, international coach or international train journey from or to the United Kingdom…and it is: 1. Delayed for more than 12 hours beyond the intended departure time. 2. Is cancelled before or after the scheduled time of departure as a result of any of the following events:

-- 2 of 4 --

a. Strike or industrial action. b. Adverse weather conditions. c. Mechanical breakdown of or a technical fault occurring in the public transport on which you are booked to travel. We will pay you: 1. £10 for the first completed 12 hours delay and £10 for each full 12 hours delay after that, up to a maximum of £100 (which is meant to help you pay for telephone calls made and meals and refreshments purchased during the delay) provided you eventually travel. 2. Up to £1,500 for any irrecoverable unused travel and accommodation costs and other pre-paid charges which you have paid or are contracted to pay, if: a. After a delay of at least 12 hours. b. Following cancellation, no suitable alternative public transport is provided within 12 hours of the scheduled time of departure. You choose to cancel your trip before departure from the United Kingdom…’ I’ve read all Miss M says about why the train track closure should be assessed as her train being cancelled due to ‘Mechanical breakdown of or a technical fault occurring in the public transport on which you are booked to travel’. But whether or not I agree with her the cover payable under the policy for her train cancellation is the same as her train being delayed for more than 12 hours beyond the intended departure time. The cover is £10 for the first completed 12 hours delay and £10 for each full 12 hours delay after that with a £100 limit (which I’ll refer to as ‘the benefit’). The policy cover for up to £1,500 for any ‘irrecoverable unused travel and accommodation costs and other pre-paid charges which you have paid or are contracted to pay’ - which IPA referred to as the abandonment policy terms - don’t apply to Miss M’s claim. Those terms only apply if a policyholder cancels their trip ‘before departure from the United Kingdom’. This cover is for when a policyholder doesn’t go on the trip at all, for the insured reasons under this part of the policy section, which is why it’s the irrecoverable unused costs that are covered. That wasn’t Miss M’s situation, the trip causing her claim was the return trip to the UK and she claimed for additional costs. IPA correctly said the policy doesn’t cover the additional costs Miss M claimed for in her circumstances and correctly declined the claim for her costs. The only policy cover for Miss M’s claim is for the benefit I’ve set out above. IPA has offered £20 for the benefit. That’s because it didn’t know when the next train was available to Miss M so it estimated a delay of 24 hours. On the information it had I think IPA has made a reasonable offer in line with the policy terms. Miss M says she had to book a flight to return 26 hours later than planned because no trains were available for two days. If she’s able to provide supporting evidence to IPA that if she hadn’t booked the flight then she would have been waiting for 36 hours or more IPA can reassess any new evidence to see if it should pay further benefit for each full 12 hours delay, to a maximum of £100. If the parties couldn’t reach an agreement on the new evidence then Miss M could complain to IPA about that matter and ultimately make a separate complaint to this Service.

-- 3 of 4 --

I’ve also considered what’s fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the complaint. Miss M’s train being cancelled was completely outside her control and I understand why she decided to take a flight home so she didn’t incur further costs and could go to work. But those and the other issues Miss M has raised don’t mean IPA has to cover or pay her claim in full. Travel insurance doesn’t cover every scenario a consumer will face. It’s for insurers to decide what risks they want to insure, and the risks and cover amount IPA wants to insure and provide for when a policyholder’s transport for the return to the UK is cancelled or delayed are clearly set out in this policy. The Insurance Product Information Document (IPID), a two page summary of the key features and exclusions of the policy, also sets out the benefit for delayed departure. Where I consider policy wording ambiguous I generally consider it fair that the wording is read in the consumer’s favour. But I’m satisfied the policy wording is clear about the cover IPA provides in Miss M’s circumstances. Miss M says the policy cover for her situation didn’t meet her reasonable expectations. As I’ve said, I think the policy documents are clear about what cover there is for her claim circumstances. In such a situation travel insurance policies usually pay a fixed benefit, as with this policy, rather than pay additional costs for the policyholder to make alternative arrangements to return home. I’m sympathetic to the situation Miss M found herself in through no fault of her own and I’m sorry to read that the additional costs she incurred have caused her financial hardship. But there’s no basis on which I can reasonably say IPA has to pay the costs she’s claimed. IPA’s offer of £20 for the delayed departure benefit is a fair and reasonable offer to settle the claim on the evidence it had about when the next train would have been available to Miss M, so I partly uphold the complaint. IPA’s claim handling, with it twice saying the claim wasn’t covered at all but then offering to pay the benefit payable under the policy terms, has been frustrating for Miss M. She says she’s had to complain to this Service to get the matter resolved which required her time, effort and stress. I don’t generally award compensation for the time a consumer spends in making a complaint to an insurer or this Service and there’s no reason for me to do so in this case. Even if IPA had offered Miss M the £20 benefit to settle the claim sooner, from all she’s said I think it’s more likely than not she wouldn’t have accepted its offer and still have complained to this Service as she wants IPA to pay her additional costs in full. My final decision I partly uphold this complaint and on the available evidence I require Inter Partner Assistance SA to pay Miss M £20 benefit under the ‘Delayed departure’ policy section, as it’s now offered to do. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Nicola Sisk Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --