Inter Partner Assistance SA · DRN-6217756

The complaint Mr O complains that Inter Partner Assistance SA (IPA) declined his travel insurance claim. My references to IPA include its agents. What happened Mr O has annual back packer travel insurance, insured by IPA. He was denied entry to a South East Asian country as he was informed at the border by the immigration authority that he was ‘blacklisted’ from entering the country, which he’s said he hadn’t known. The immigration authority told Mr O to take the next available flight back to the UK, and he did so. He claimed on the policy for the additional and unused travel and accommodation costs he incurred. IPA declined the claim. Its final response letter said: • Mr O’s claim circumstances weren’t covered by the policy. The policy term he referred to in support of his claim didn’t apply. The policy term meant there was cover when a recognised government or regulatory authority advised someone travelling in the country to evacuate or return due to an incident or safety concern, which wasn’t his situation. • A general exclusion in the policy says cover doesn’t apply as he was unable to travel due to not having the necessary travel documentation, such as a valid passport or visa. Mr O complained to us. In summary he said: • The relevant policy term didn’t include the words ‘due to an incident or safety concern’ so his situation was covered. • According to the UK and relevant country’s government travel advice he had the necessary travel documents to enter the South East Asian country. He’d registered on the country’s travel system before boarding the flight and had a valid passport with an expiry date of at least six months from the date of arrival. He didn’t need a visa as he could visit for tourism or business purposes for up to 30 days. Our Investigator said IPA reasonably declined the claim as the policy didn’t cover Mr O’s claim circumstances. Mr O disagreed and wanted an Ombudsman’s decision. In summary he added: • The policy term wasn’t clear there was cover only for natural disasters or similar. • Before buying the policy he’d read the policy carefully and decided to buy it based on the policy wording in the relevant term. If IPA’s interpretation of cover had been clear in the policy he wouldn’t have bought it. He’s an experienced traveller and having previously travelled throughout South East Asia he knew countries in that area denied entry for ‘all kinds of unusual reasons’ and he wanted to ensure the policy he bought would cover him for those circumstances.

-- 1 of 4 --

• Him being denied entry to a country did include being advised to return home. The word ‘advise’ isn’t defined in the policy and a dictionary definition is to ‘inform (someone) about a fact or situation in a formal or official way’, which would include an instruction by the immigration authority to return home. • The immigration authority could only advise him to return to the UK as neither it nor the airline had the legal power to make him return as neither would pay for his return flight. The immigration authority advised him to either pay for the next available flight back home with a specific airline or remain detained within a confined immigration detention area within the airport, where, he says, he was being deprived of his basic human rights. What I provisionally decided – and why I made a provisional decision that I was intending to not uphold this complaint but for different reasons than our Investigator. I said: ‘I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’ve considered all the points Mr O has made. I won’t address all his 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 claims unreasonably. I’m sorry to disappoint Mr O but I’m satisfied that IPA reasonably declined the claim. I’ll explain why. The general exclusion in the policy IPA referred to says it won’t cover claims directly or indirectly resulting from: ‘Your inability to travel due to your failure to hold, obtain or produce a valid passport or any required visa in time for the booked trip’. Mr O has provided his ‘Exclusion Order’ from the ‘Bureau of Immigration’ in the South East Asian country. The order says Mr O was ‘found excludable’ based on a ‘BLO’, which I understand to be a blacklisted order. The exclusion order says ‘refer to Summary of Facts for additional details’. I’ve not seen the Summary of Facts and I’ve seen no evidence as to why Mr O was blacklisted. So I’ve seen no evidence that Mr O was blacklisted due to not having ‘a valid passport or any required visa in time for the booked trip’. From the evidence he’s provided I think he had the necessary passport and had registered on the country’s e-travel system as required. Mr O had a one way flight ticket but I’ve seen no evidence that he intended to stay in the relevant country for over 30 days, which would have required him to have a visa. IPA hasn’t shown me that it reasonably relied on the above exclusion to decline the claim. So the issue is whether Mr O’s claim was covered by the following policy term in the ‘Cancelling or cutting short a trip’ section: ‘Cover for cutting short your trip We will pay you up to the amount shown in the Table of Benefits for your proportion only of your unused travel and accommodation costs and other pre-paid charges together with any reasonable additional travel and expenses if you have to cut short your trip following any of the reasons which are shown in the table below…

-- 2 of 4 --

The Travel Advice Unit of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) or other regulatory authority in a country in which you are travelling in advising you to evacuate or return to your home area, providing the advice came into force during your trip’. I don’t think the policy term covers Mr O’s claim circumstances. He wasn’t ‘travelling in’ the South East Asian country when he was told or advised to return home by its immigration authority. He’d been denied entry to the South East Asian country when its immigration authority told or advised him to return to the UK. I think IPA correctly said his claim wasn’t covered under the policy terms and it correctly declined the claim in line with the policy terms. I’ve also considered what’s fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the complaint. The policy wording doesn’t specifically say Mr O’s situation isn’t covered, but I don’t think it needs to. It’s for insurers to decide what risks they want to insure, and the risks IPA wants to insure for a policyholder in the relevant policy section are clear enough and don’t include the cause of Mr O’s claim. Mr O says he wouldn’t have bought the policy if it had been clear he wouldn’t be covered if he was excluded from a country due to being blacklisted or for many other reasons. Even if that’s so, I don’t think he’s been disadvantaged as to my knowledge it’s highly unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr O would have been able to buy a general consumer travel insurance policy that covered his claim circumstances. Also if, based on his experience, he wanted to be specifically covered for being declined entry to a country for all kinds of reasons I think it would have been reasonable for him to have contacted IPA to check cover in those situations. Had he done so I think IPA would have told him he wouldn’t be covered for his situation. Overall, I’m satisfied that IPA reasonably declined the claim’. Responses to my provisional decision IPA accepted my provisional decision. Mr O didn’t respond by the response date we gave so I asked our Investigator to phone him to see if he wanted to comment on my provisional decision. Mr O said he’d been busy and not been able to respond but he’d check to see if there was anything else he could provide or if any evidence may have been missed. He added that he felt my provisional decision was unfair because he’d paid a lot of money for the annual policy, had to return to the UK and IPA wouldn’t refund the policy premium. We gave Mr O extra time to respond but the new response date has now passed and we haven’t received any further information from him. 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 extended date we gave Mr O to respond to my provisional decision has passed so I think it’s reasonable for me to make a final decision on the evidence I have.

-- 3 of 4 --

Mr O says my provisional decision is unfair because IPA didn’t refund the premium for his annual policy even though he had to return to the UK. But whether or not IPA refunded the policy premium isn’t relevant to whether IPA reasonably declined the claim. An insurer doesn’t have to refund the policy premium just because it declined a claim under the policy. I note the policy doesn’t end until July 2026 so Mr O continues to be covered by the policy for any trips he’s taken or will take until the policy ends, subject to the policy terms. IPA has accepted my provisional decision and Mr O’s response hasn’t changed my mind as to what’s a fair and reasonable outcome to this complaint. For the reasons I’ve given in my provisional findings and these findings I’m satisfied that IPA reasonably declined the claim and I don’t uphold this complaint. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Nicola Sisk Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --