Alan Blunden & Co. Ltd · DRN-6214274

The complaint Mr B complains Alan Blunden & Co. Ltd (AB) mis-sold him his caravan insurance policy. What happened The circumstances of this complaint will be well known to both parties and so I’ve summarised events. In 2021 following a discussion with AB, Mr B purchased a caravan insurance policy. The policy included a sum insured of £15,000 and covered £150 worth of contents. The policy was renewed in 2022 with the same sum insured. Unfortunately, Mr B’s caravan was written off following a flood. The insurer ultimately settled Mr B’s claim by paying him the sum insured as well as paying him £150 toward his contents. Mr B raised a complaint about the way his claim had been handled and settled. That complaint was referred to this Service, and another Ombudsman issued a final decision about it. Mr B subsequently raised a complaint to AB about the sale of his policy. He was also unhappy it hadn’t sent his policy documents and with its involvement in the handling of his claim. On 17 April 2025 AB issued Mr B with a final response to his complaint but didn’t uphold it. It said it was satisfied it worked on Mr B’s behalf to try and obtain a suitable claim outcome and sent the correct policy documentation to him in a timely manner. Mr B referred his complaint to this Service. Our Investigator looked into things but didn’t uphold Mr B’s complaint. Mr B didn’t agree with our Investigator. He provided a detailed response but in summary he said: • There is no evidence he was warned selecting a £15,000 sum insured would be a ceiling figure and would likely result in a shortfall in the event of a total loss. He also wasn’t advised to separately calculate the replacement cost inclusive of decking and fixtures. • The reduction in contents cover from £500 to £150 wasn’t accompanied by any meaningful explanation of what would constitute ‘contents’, that everyday removable items would fall within this definition and that he may not be covered under his home insurance policy. • It wasn’t advised that site fees wouldn’t be covered under the policy. • The Investigator had relied heavily on a telephone call which didn’t relate to the relevant renewal period where the failure in service occurred. • He didn’t receive the policy document outlining the terms and exclusions of the policy meaning he had no knowledge of the policy limitations until the claim process had

-- 1 of 5 --

begun. • AB were the primary point of contact throughout the claim and had a clear responsibility to ensure the claim was handled appropriately and that the outcome was fair. As an agreement couldn’t be reached the complaint has been passed 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. I want to acknowledge I’ve summarised Mr B’s complaint in less detail than he’s presented it. I’ve not commented on every point he has raised. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be the key points I need to think about. I mean no discourtesy by this, but it simply reflects the informal nature of this Service. I assure Mr B and AB I’ve read and considered everything that’s been provided. When considering this complaint, I’ve taken into consideration the relevant rules and industry guidelines, alongside what I consider to be fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances. I’ve addressed the key points separately. The sum insured When AB sold Mr B his policy it did so on an advised basis. So, I would expect it to have considered whether the policy it was recommending to Mr B was suitable for his needs. I’d also expect it to provide him with information about his policy in a clear, fair and not misleading way. Whilst I acknowledge Mr B has said the initial sale of his policy doesn’t relate to the period in which the claim took place, as this was when the initial sum insured and personal possessions limit was set, I consider it relevant to Mr B’s complaint. I’ve listened to the initial call from when Mr B purchased his policy. During this call Mr B and the handler have a detailed discussion about the value of Mr B’s caravan with the handler encouraging a review of the market. The handler reviewed a market value guide which suggested the market value of a similar caravan to Mr B’s would be around £3,000. Although I acknowledge the evidence Mr B has since provided would suggest Mr B’s specific model of caravan wouldn’t have appeared on the market value guide. Following further discussion, AB provided a quote with the sum insured set at £20,500 as this appeared to be what Mr B had previously insured his caravan for. Following this Mr B asked to reduce the sum insured to £15,000, acknowledging that his caravan was 20 years old and so if he could replace his caravan for around £12,000 he would have some room if the prices go up in the next year or so. I can see prior to Mr B’s renewal, he emailed the caravan site asking whether the market value of between £13,500 and £16,500 it had advised him of the year before was still correct. The caravan park responded to say the caravan was no longer manufactured but a similar caravan would be between £14,000 and £18,000. After receiving his renewal notice he spoke to AB again. During this call he said he didn’t think he was underinsured but according to the caravan site he ought to be insured for a little more. The handler reviewed the market value guide which produced a valuation of around

-- 2 of 5 --

£2,500, but Mr B didn’t consider the market value guide to be accurate. Following a discussion about the value of the caravan Mr B ultimately decided he was happy with the £15,000 sum insured. Mr B has said AB failed to tell him that the sum insured should also include fixtures and his decking. And I acknowledge during the initial sales call, AB simply asked Mr B how much he wished to insure his caravan for. However, I think Mr B would have reasonably known he would need to insure these elements. In any event, another Ombudsman has already considered whether Mr B was adequately insured. So, even if AB should have highlighted this, I’m not persuaded Mr B has lost out because of this. Based on the evidence provided I don’t think AB made an error when it sold Mr B a policy with the sum insured of £15,000. I think the sum insured appeared to be suitable based on what Mr B had said about the value of his caravan and I think it made clear it was ultimately Mr B’s decision on what he wished to insure it for. Additionally, Mr B renewed his policy having explored the market and ultimately decided the sum insured was suitable for his needs. Whilst Mr B has said he wasn’t warned the sum insured would be a ceiling figure, I’m satisfied based on the renewal call that Mr B was aware in the event of a total loss the most he would receive would be £15,000. Contents cover During the sale of Mr B’s policy AB asked him whether he wanted contents cover. Mr B said he had £500 worth of contents cover but he thought he would struggle to get £150 worth of anything down there. During the call Mr B said he thought contents would include things like clothing and the handler said it would include general camping equipment and things like this. The handler then asked Mr B if he wanted them to put £150 for contents to which Mr B agreed. Whilst I think the handler could have been a bit more specific about what the insurer would consider to be ‘contents’ covered under the policy, I’m not persuaded this means the policy has been mis-sold. I think Mr B was aware of what would generally be considered as ‘contents’ under an insurance policy, particularly as he had said he insured his contents under his previous policy. Additionally, Mr B has said he believed his home insurance policy provided cover for his contents. So, even had the handler been more specific about contents cover, I’m not persuaded Mr B would have increased the policy limit for his contents given he was under the impression his contents were insured elsewhere. I acknowledge Mr B has said he wasn’t warned his contents might not be insured under his home insurance policy, but Mr B didn’t make AB aware during the sale of his policy he believed this to be the case. I wouldn’t expect AB to warn Mr B to check other policies unless it had specific reason to believe he may be under or over insured. And I don’t think there was anything to suggest this may be the case given what Mr B had told it during the call. Overall, I think AB were reasonable to set the policy limit for contents at £150 based on what Mr B told it during the sale of his policy. Policy Documentation Mr B has said he didn’t receive the full policy terms and conditions for his policy until after he made a claim and the loss adjuster began quoting terms he hadn’t seen previously. AB has provided an email it sent to Mr B following him purchasing his policy and I can see

-- 3 of 5 --

this included the policy schedule, key facts and demands and needs statement. It also included the full policy terms and conditions along with the insurance product information document (IPID). I’m satisfied this was sent to the email address Mr B provided to AB when he was looking to purchase his policy. I can see Mr B was also sent a renewal notice, which included a notice to policyholders setting out any policy wording changes. I’m satisfied AB sent this to Mr B as he told AB he had received his renewal during his call with it in 2022. So, overall, I’m satisfied AB sent Mr B the appropriate policy documentation, including the full terms and conditions of the policy. Site fees Mr B has said he wasn’t told that his policy didn’t provide cover for site fees. AB aren’t required to highlight each and every feature of an insurance policy. However, it is required to highlight any significant exclusions and limitations of the policy being sold. I don’t consider it to be significant or unusual for a policy of this type not to include site fees, and so I don’t think AB needed to specifically highlight this during the sale or renewal of Mr B’s policy. As I’ve said, Mr B was sent the terms of his policy following the purchase and so if having cover for site fees was something he felt was important to him, he had the opportunity to check whether this policy provided him with cover for this. Claim handling AB aren’t an insurer, nor was it acting on behalf of the insurer during Mr B’s claim. So, I can’t hold it responsible for any of the actions of the insurer when dealing with Mr B’s claim. However, AB’s terms of business explained it would provide Mr B with assistance with any claim he needed to make relating to a policy it sold. Based on the evidence provided I’m satisfied AB provided Mr B with appropriate assistance during the course of his claim with the insurer. I can see from its claim notes it was in regular contact with both Mr B and the insurer and I can’t see any evidence its actions delayed Mr B’s claim, nor caused him a loss. I’m aware Mr B was unhappy with the way the insurer dealt with his claim, but I think this was ultimately outside of the control of AB. Data subject access request (DSAR) I should explain that it isn’t for this Service to say whether a business has breached the data protection rules. This would be for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). But I can consider whether AB has treated Mr B fairly and reasonably in relation to the requests he made. Mr B said he submitted a DSAR in April 2024 which included information from AB. I understand the insurer took responsibility of this on behalf of AB. AB has said it provided all of the appropriate data to the insurer so it could fulfil Mr B’s request. Given the insurer had taken responsibility for this, I think this was reasonable in the circumstances. Mr B has said he doesn’t believe the insurer carried out his DSAR as it should have done and so on 16 April 2025, he asked AB to service its own DSAR. I can see AB responded to this request on 30 April 2025. If Mr B believes AB hasn’t carried out his DSAR as it should have done this would be subject to a new complaint given the DSAR was responded to following AB issuing its final response of 17 April 2025. Therefore, I won’t be commenting on this second request as part of this decision. I’m aware this will be disappointing for Mr B as I know how strongly he feels AB hasn’t treated him fairly. However, for the reasons I’ve set out above, I don’t require it to take any

-- 4 of 5 --

further action in relation to his complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve outlined above, I don’t uphold Mr B’s complaint about Alan Blunden & Co. Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Andrew Clarke Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --