DRN-6178537

The complaint Mx M complains about the price Pinnacle Insurance Limited charged for their pet insurance policies. 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 Pinnacle had acted fairly. 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: • In 2016 and 2018, Mx M took out pet insurance policies through an intermediary, which renewed annually and were underwritten by others. • At the 2025 renewals, Pinnacle became the underwriter for both policies and set the combined premium to over £1,500. That was an increase of nearly 25% from the 2024 premium charged by the previous insurer. • Each insurer is entitled to take its own view of risk and, based on that, what price to charge for providing insurance to a particular policyholder. • Nonetheless, I would expect Pinnacle to be able to show it set the 2025 premium fairly. In these circumstances, that would mean it was set in line with Pinnacle’s general view of risk and it treated Mx M consistently with how any other policyholder in similar circumstances would have been. • The evidence I’ve seen from Pinnacle satisfies me it’s checked the 2025 premium and there weren’t any calculation errors. And the calculation was in line with the way Pinnacle calculates premiums for all policyholders, so Mx M has been treated consistently. Pinnacle notes Mx M has made claims valuing more than £5,000. That had an impact on the premium, as it generally indicates further claims are likely. It’s also explained some of the other key factors it takes into account when calculating a premium, such as the age and breed of the pet and the likely cost of local vet fees. • I understand the complaint has arisen, at least in part, because the cumulative impact of premium increases over the years means the policy is now much more expensive than when it was taken out. This is particularly impactful for Mx M, as this is a ‘lifetime’ pet policy, claims have been made, and so they would likely lose some of the policy benefits if they were to move to another insurer. • However, Pinnacle only became the underwriter at the 2025 renewal. It was entitled to set the premium according to its general view of risk at that time. And it wasn’t responsible for the earlier premiums – or taking them into account when setting the 2025 premium. That means I can’t hold it responsible for the increase at the 2025

-- 1 of 2 --

renewal. Nonetheless, I note Pinnacle took steps to limit the impact of applying its general view of risk by capping the combined premium increase. • For the reasons given above, I consider the 2025 premium was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. • As this complaint is against Pinnacle, I have only considered matters for which Pinnacle is responsible. That means I haven’t considered the premiums set by others. Nor have I considered the sale of the policy by the intermediary – that’s been looked at separately. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mx M to accept or reject my decision before 12 May 2026. James Neville Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --