Financial Ombudsman Service decision

DRN-6082588

Travel InsuranceComplaint not upheld
Get your free legal insight →Email to a colleague
Get your free legal insight on this case →

The verbatim text of this Financial Ombudsman Service decision. Sourced directly from the FOS published decisions register. Consumer names are reduced to initials by FOS at point of publication. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original decision.

Full decision

The complaint Mr and Mrs K are unhappy that Aviva Insurance Limited declined a claim made under a travel insurance policy (‘the policy’). What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my decision. 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. That includes all points made by Mr K along with all the other evidence. I won’t respond to each of these. I hope he and Mrs K understand that no discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. The rules that govern the Financial Ombudsman Service allow me to do this as we are an informal dispute resolution service. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve overlooked it. I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every point to fulfil my statutory remit. Did Aviva act fairly and reasonably? Aviva has a regulatory obligation to handle insurance claims fairly and promptly. And not to unreasonably decline a claim. Mrs K and Mr and Mrs K’s son missed their pre-booked outbound flight because the airport they had been due to travel from experienced an IT incident which affected all major airport systems. They rebooked a flight from a different airport, which they then travelled to. I empathise with the situation they found themselves in. They missed their original flight through no fault of their own. The circumstances were unforeseen and caused significant inconvenience for them (and Mr and Mrs K incurred increased costs making alternative arrangements). I’m sorry to disappoint them but for the reasons set out below, I’m satisfied Aviva has fairly and reasonably declined the claim. Travel insurance isn’t designed to cover every eventuality. And although the policy does provide cover for ‘missed transport’, that’s subject to the remaining terms and conditions of the policy. The policy says: We’ll pay for alternative travel and accommodation costs to enable the insured person to reach their destination if their pre-booked transport is missed because of

-- 1 of 2 --

an unexpected transport delay, such as the vehicle they're travelling in breaking down, or a public transport being delayed or cancelled. I’m satisfied Aviva has fairly concluded that there’s no cover in the circumstances which led to the flight being missed in this case. I’m satisfied the examples provided in this section of the policy make reasonably clear that the intention is to provide cover for those insured under the policy if the transport, they're using to reach their departure point, is delayed. In this case, I’ve seen no compelling evidence that Mrs K and Mr and Mrs K’s son didn’t get to the airport on time. From what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied the issues which led to them missing their original flight took place within the airport due to an IT incident. I’m not persuaded that the words ‘pre-booked transport’ has been too narrowly construed or that it would be fair and reasonable to interpret these words to include the circumstances which led to Mrs K and Mr and Mrs K’s son missing their original flight. I’ve taken into account Mr and Mrs K’s point that those circumstances aren’t expressly excluded under the policy terms. But I’m not persuaded that means Aviva should reasonably cover the claim. The ‘missed transport’ section of the policy sets out the circumstances which are covered. I wouldn’t reasonably expect every possible circumstance not covered to be separately listed under this section. I’ve also considered other sections of the policy terms (including ‘travel disruption’), and I’m satisfied that there isn’t cover for the circumstances which led to the original flight being missed in this case. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs K to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. David Curtis-Johnson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --