Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited · DRN-5944199

The complaint Mr K complains that Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited has provided a faulty replacement handset when settling a claim under his gadget insurance policy. Where I refer to Great Lakes, this includes the actions of its agents and claims handlers for which it takes responsibility. What happened The detailed background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I’ll only summarise the key events here. • On or around 15 July 2025, Mr K lost his mobile phone. He made a claim on his gadget insurance. • Great Lakes accepted the claim and agreed to send Mr K a replacement handset as settlement. But as it didn’t have the device in stock, this wasn’t delivered until 25 July 2025, by which time Mr K was on holiday. • On returning from his holiday, Mr K used the handset. He says it was overheating and the battery was draining rapidly so he contacted Great Lakes on 26 August 2025 to report the fault. The handset was returned. • Great Lakes checked the handset but said it couldn’t replicate the issues Mr K was experiencing. The results of its diagnostic test showed the handset was fully functional with a cycle count of 360 and battery health of 87%. • On assessing the handset, Great Lakes identified a slight marking to the midframe of the handset which it attributed to a fall. It said as Mr K had damaged the handset and there was no cover under the warranty for accidental damage, it wasn’t prepared to provide a further replacement. • Mr K raised a complaint that the replacement handset Great Lakes has provided is faulty and damaged. He’s also unhappy with the amount of time Great Lakes took to settle his claim. • As Great Lakes didn’t uphold the complaint, Mr K brought it to our Service. But our Investigator was persuaded Great Lakes had handled the claim in line with the policy terms and hadn’t treated Mr K unfairly. As Mr K didn’t agree with our Investigator, 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Having done so, I’ve reached the same outcome as our Investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. Before I explain why, I wish to acknowledge the parties’ submissions in respect of this complaint. Whilst I’ve read them all, I won’t comment in detail on every single point that has been made. Instead, I’ll focus on the key points that are relevant to the outcome I’ve reached. That’s in line with our remit, which is to resolve complaints promptly and with minimal formality. The terms and conditions of Mr K’s gadget insurance policy says: “If you accidentally lose your gadget we will replace it (in respect of a valid loss claim).” It goes on to say: “Where we replace the gadget(s), the replacements may be pre-owned, refurbished or remanufactured (not brand new). This is not a new for old insurance policy.” Mr K lost his phone. So Great Lakes settled the claim with a refurbished handset as a replacement. I’m satisfied this is in accordance with the policy terms, and this isn’t in dispute. Mr K says the replacement handset was faulty as it was overheating and not holding battery charge. Great Lakes considered the replacement under the warranty. The policy defines the warranty as: “Warranty means the period where the administrator will resolve any defects in materials and workmanship when they repair or replace your gadget in the event of a claim, when your gadget is used normally in accordance with manufactures guidelines. For repairs the warranty provided is 3 months and for a replacement the warranty provided is 12 months. The warranty will also include the costs associated with transporting the device to and from our repair centre. The warranty does not cover wear and tear, damage by computer viruses, normal maintenance, accidental damage or any indirect loss.” Great Lakes’ assessment of the replacement handset didn’t identify any faults. I’ve reviewed the results of the checks completed and the handset passed as fully functional. Based on this, I don’t think Great Lakes acted unfairly by returning the handset to Mr K and refusing to provide a further replacement. This isn’t to say Mr K isn’t experiencing problems with the handset. He may well be and I don’t disbelieve him. But if Great Lakes can’t replicate the problem and identify an issue, I can’t fairly conclude that it should do something to rectify it. Rather, it’s up to Mr K to provide further evidence of the fault. He may wish to obtain an expert opinion or diagnostic tests. And if he can show there is a problem, I’d expect Great Lakes to reconsider the matter whilst Mr K is within the warranty period. I’m aware Mr K is also unhappy with the marking to the midframe of the handset. It’s not clear when this damage occurred; Mr K initially told Great Lakes the handset was delivered in this condition but later said he wasn’t aware of the marking until Great Lakes told him about it after he’d returned it for repairs. So, I can’t say with any certainty whether the replacement handset arrived with this defect or if it was damaged whilst in Mr K’s possession.

-- 2 of 3 --

Where there is a lack of evidence, I must decide what I think is more likely to have happened based on the balance of probabilities. I’m persuaded that, if the defect existed at the time it was delivered to Mr K, he would’ve reported this to Great Lakes at the time he notified it of the faults. As he didn’t, I can’t be satisfied it was there. I appreciate Mr K says he was preoccupied with the overheating and battery problem, but the onus was on him to check the replacement was to a satisfactory standard and there is no record of him raising any issue with the handset itself; only its functionality. And lastly, Mr K complains about the length of time Great Lakes took to process his claim. The relevant rules say that Great Lakes must settle a claim promptly and fairly. I’ve considered whether it did so. It took a total of ten days from the date Mr K made his claim to the date he received a replacement handset. In that time, Great Lakes assessed the claim and the evidence provided, took payment of the policy excess, ordered the required stock, and arranged delivery. Overall, I don’t consider this timeframe to be unreasonable, and I haven’t identified any unnecessary delays in Great Lakes’ control. I appreciate Mr K was going on holiday and he wanted the replacement handset before he left, which is understandable. And I don’t doubt it was disappointing and inconvenient that he didn’t get the replacement in time. But I’m not persuaded this means Great Lakes didn’t deal with the claim promptly and fairly. It’s unfortunate Mr K lost his phone so close to his pre- planned holiday, but this isn’t something I can hold Great Lakes responsible for. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 6 April 2026. Sheryl Sibley Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --