Utility Warehouse Limited · DRN-6242440

The complaint Mr W is unhappy his home insurance policy was renewed by Utility Warehouse Limited (“UW”) when he asked it not to be. UW were acting as a broker. What happened Mr W received a letter from his broker on 28 March setting out that his policy would be automatically renewed on 27 April. He was unhappy as the letter also informed him that his premium would be increasing by 65%. Mr W became frustrated, as he tried contacting UW to do something about the large increase in cost he was facing. He was frustrated as he couldn’t speak to the same person about the issue on different occasions he called in. Mr W said he received another letter on 26 April saying his policy had been renewed. When he complained about the service he received, he said UW never investigated his complaint and didn’t issue with a final response letter. UW said it issues a standard renewal notice around one month before a renewal is due. UW said both an advisor and manager informed Mr W when he phoned that the pricing isn’t determined by itself but by a small panel of underwriters and is based on a wide variety of factors, which can lead to the price changing. UW confirmed it couldn’t change the price. UW acknowledged it could’ve done better when dealing with Mr W’s request to cancel his policy, which would’ve avoided Mr W needing to follow-up on more than one occasion. It said it would use this feedback to consider improving its process. UW said it did switch off the automatic renewal on the policy on 25th April. Our investigator decided not to uphold the complaint. She explained she couldn’t look at the price increase within this complaint as it was determined by a different business to UW. However, she didn’t think it was clear Mr W wanted to cancel his policy when he called UW and he said he would look for a cheaper price. She thought UW acknowledged its mistakes and she thought that was enough in the circumstances of this complaint. Mr W disagreed, so the case has been referred to an ombudsman. My provisional decision I made a provisional decision on this on 24 March 2026. I said: I want to start by re-iterating what our investigator explained to Mr W. This complaint has been raised against UW who acted as broker in this instance. UW are responsible for the administration of the policy, so I can only consider failures by UW that it is responsible for. A major part of Mr W’s complaint was with the hike in his insurance premium. This hike is set by his insurer, and his broker has no influence over the decision on the policy’s pricing. Therefore, if Mr W wishes to complain specifically on the price of his policy, he’d have to make a complaint to his insurer in the first instance. If he’s unhappy with its response, he can escalate this complaint to our service.

-- 1 of 3 --

I’ve considered whether UW has done anything wrong in its role of broker. I won’t be discussing the price of the policy here, as it isn’t in UW’s control. A month ahead of his policy renewal, UW provided Mr W the details of the renewal and the new price for his policy. This is what I would expect, as it has provided Mr W with opportunity to consider his renewal ahead of it automatically renewing. I appreciate Mr W felt frustrated trying to raise his concerns. He had to speak to different people. This can be frustrating repeating his issues. I can see a call agent did call Mr W on 2 April. The call agent tried explaining to Mr W that UW weren’t the people who set the price of the policy and he explained how the insurer considers risk in setting the price and he explained as broker their role is to choose the best price from its panel of insurers. I think the tone of the call agent was sympathetic with the customer. Mr W was clear he wanted to see the outcome of his investigation of the complaint, and he wanted the final response letter so he could escalate it to his MP. From listening to the call, it’s not clear if Mr W understood the difference between the role of the insurer and broker. The call agent did try to explain that UW weren’t responsible for the setting of the price. However, I do think it was clear from this call that Mr W didn’t want to renew his policy at the price that was quoted. He said the price can’t be justified. Even if the call agent was unclear, I think there was opportunity for him to clarify on this call and to switch off the autorenewal on the policy at this point. Unfortunately, by not doing this, it caused Mr W further frustration as he then had to cancel his policy. Mr W said he never received the final response letter. However, I have checked and the final response letter was dated (7 May). Mr W has now seen this letter. Letters can get lost in the post and sometimes misplaced in the house. However, the important thing is that UW did investigate Mr W’s complaint and did issue a final response letter. This is its responsibility, so I can’t say it has done anything wrong here. It isn’t responsible for what happens to the letter once it leaves its premises. UW have 8-weeks to investigate a complaint and issue a final response letter. UW have acknowledged it could’ve handled things better and has provided feedback to those in its business who look to improve the processes. However, as I think the call on 2 April was a missed opportunity to stop the policy from renewing, I intend to uphold this complaint. I intend that UW pay Mr W £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by spending further time cancelling his policy. To re-iterate if Mr W wishes to complaint about the quoted price of his policy, he’d need to do this with his insurer. Responses to my provisional decision Mr W accepted my provisional decision, and he didn’t have anything further to add. UW didn’t accept my provisional decision. UW said Mr W didn’t provide a clear or direct instruction to cancel the policy, and it said it had a duty of care to avoid “assumption-based cancellations”. It said Mr W had access to self-service tools to remove the auto-renewal from his policy. UW has said of the case confirms no financial harm has occurred to Mr W, so it thinks the compensation awarded is unjustified.

-- 2 of 3 --

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 agree Mr W didn’t provide a clear instruction to cancel his policy. However, as I set out in my decision, I think UW missed an opportunity to stop the policy from renewing when it spoke to Mr W. It was clear from the call Mr W was unhappy with the quoted price, and it was clear Mr W didn’t want the policy at that price. So, I think the simplest thing to have occurred on that call was for UW to clarify with Mr W what he wanted to do, and if he said he didn’t want the policy it could have stopped it renewing. The £75 compensation is for distress and inconvenience suffered by Mr W, for UW not resolving the problem when it had opportunity to do so and the later problems that caused. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require Utility Warehouse Limited pay Mr W £75* compensation – for distress and inconvenience. * Utility Warehouse Limited must make the payment within 28 calendar days from the date it is informed by us of Mr W’s acceptance of my final decision. If UW does not pay the compensation by this date, it should pay 8% simple interest per year on the compensation amount, for the period following the deadline to the date of settlement. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Pete Averill Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --