DRN-6025968

The complaint Mr and Mrs C complain about INTACT INSURANCE UK LIMITED in relation to their pet insurance policy. They’re unhappy with the way Intact communicated, and the price charged, at the 2025 renewal. As Mrs C has primarily dealt with the matter, I’ll refer to her on behalf of Mr C for ease of reading. And reference to Intact includes its agents and representatives. Premium figures have been rounded for simplicity. 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. Our investigator thought Intact acted fairly overall. I agree, and for the same reasons, so I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go over everything again in detail. Instead, I’ll summarise the main points: • The main focus of the complaint is Intact’s communication around the 2025 renewal. Intact was required to provide information that was clear, fair and not misleading such that Mrs C could make an informed decision about whether to renew the policy. So I’ll begin by looking at the communication and whether it met the requirement. • Intact says it made an error at the September 2024 renewal, which meant it charged Mrs C £70 less than it should have done - £460 instead of £530. It wrote to her in April 2025 to let her know about the error. It said it would calculate the 2025 premium based on the correct 2024 renewal price. Mrs C doesn’t dispute receiving this letter. • Intact says it sent renewal documents in August 2025, ahead of the September 2025 renewal, to outline the renewal offer. That included a premium increase to £720. I recognise Mrs C says she didn’t receive the documents. But they were correctly addressed and evidence I’ve seen from Intact’s internal system shows they were sent. So, on the balance of probability, I’m satisfied it’s likely they were sent to her. • So, at this point, Intact had told Mrs C it would calculate the 2025 premium based on the correct 2024 premium of £530. And it had told her that would make the 2025 premium £720. I’m satisfied it clearly met the requirement up to this time. • Just after the September 2025 renewal, Mrs C received a letter from Intact. It reminded her that the ‘last’ renewal price of £460 was incorrect and said it would use the correct premium, £530, to calculate the ‘upcoming’ renewal. • Mrs C says she thought this letter meant the 2025 premium would increase from £460 to £530. However, she later found out the 2025 premium was £720. • I don’t think the letter could reasonably be construed in that way. It included the premium charged at the 2024 renewal, said it was incorrect, and the correct premium

-- 1 of 3 --

would be used at the next renewal. It also noted any policy changes prior to the 2025 renewal date could impact the premium. And it reiterated the message from the April 2025 letter, which fell long before the renewal. So I think it was reasonably clear the letter said it would base the 2025 premium calculation on the correct 2024 premium of £530 – so an increase from that figure was likely. Though Mrs C didn’t receive the renewal documents, Intact was entitled to expect she’d received them. And with those documents, the letter would have been clearer. • Nonetheless, the timing of the letter falling after the renewal was unhelpful. It should clearly have fallen before the renewal, perhaps alongside the renewal documents, to avoid any potential confusion. Intact has accepted this and apologised. I’m satisfied that’s a fair and reasonable response in the circumstances. • Overall, whilst Intact should have timed the letter better, I’m satisfied it broadly met the requirement set out above. • At the 2025 renewal, Intact increased the premium to £720. Mrs C has been clear her complaint isn’t about the premium increase itself. She accepts Intact is entitled to take its own view of risk and set the premiums accordingly. As a result, I haven’t considered this point. • Her complaint is about the potential impact of a claim she made in the 2024 policy year, bearing in mind the information Intact has provided. It said premiums were likely to increase each year, even without a claim, as pets tend to get more ill as they get older. And, as a result, premiums can double following a claim. • I understand the recent claim was for the cost of cleaning a pet after it came into contact with glue – not for an illness or injury. As the information provided by Intact specifically mentioned premium increases based on illness, Mrs C has questioned whether it’s right for that claim to impact the premium. • I’m satisfied the wording was clear that annual increases should be expected, and are likely to be more significant following a claim. Whilst the wording specifically mentions illness, I don’t think it made a commitment to only increase a premium in the event of a claim for illness. I think it made the point that illness is a key driver of premium increases – but that doesn’t exclude any other drivers. So I consider Intact was entitled to take into account the claim when calculating the premium, and that wasn’t contrary to the information provided. • Mrs C says she found similar cover available with Intact at a cheaper price. Intact says it was unlikely to be a like-for-like comparison as the price may not include previous claims and may include a discount not available at renewal. I haven’t seen any evidence of the cover Mrs C found, so it can’t be compared or considered. • Overall, for the reasons given, I’m satisfied Intact has acted fairly and reasonably. I consider its apology is sufficient for the timing error of the reminder letter. I don’t require it to take any further action. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs C and Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. James Neville Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --