Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6278144

The complaint Mr and Mrs C complain that Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited trading as LV= significantly increased the renewal price of their buildings and contents cover after they made a claim. And that they weren’t told that making a claim was likely to increase their premium, even though they asked LV how much the claim was likely to cost them. What happened In May 2025 Mr and Mrs C noticed that their monthly water bill had significantly increased. They contacted their Water Company and were told the most likely reason for this was a water leak. They instructed a plumber who was unable to find a leak within their property. He advised them to contact their household insurers as the leak was probably in an underground pipe. They contacted LV and following a discussion agreed to LV instructing one of their underground service suppliers to visit their property to locate the source of the leak. Mr and Mrs C’s policy was due to renew on 1 June 2025. LV had sent them their renewal documentation on 2 May 2025 with a renewal price of £657.27. After they made their claim LV issued new renewal documentation on 13 May 2025 with a renewal price of £1,190.04. Mr and Mrs C raised a complaint with LV as they said that they’d not been told of the impact making a claim would have on their premium, despite asking about the financial implications of making a claim. Mr and Mrs C say that LV refused to review their premium so they cancelled their policy and sought insurance elsewhere. LV didn’t issue a final response to Mr and Mrs C’s complaint. Mr and Mrs C complained to our service. Our investigator considered the case and said we can’t tell a business what they should charge for insurance, but we can assess whether Mr and Mrs C had been treated fairly when LV decided what premium to charge them. She said LV had provided details of their pricing policies which she’d reviewed carefully, but as the information was commercially sensitive and provided on the basis it was kept confidential, she couldn’t share this information. She said she understood Mr and Mrs C’s concerns about the increase in their premium, especially because of the level of the increase. But having reviewed the information LV had provided she said they’d acted within their pricing principles when setting the price for their policy. The initial renewal quotation didn’t take into account Mr and Mrs C’s recent claim. Our investigator said that it’s up to an insurer to decide who they offer insurance to and the price they need to charge to cover the risk that business presents to them. And previous claims are something an insurer can reasonably take into account when considering risk. As Mr and Mrs C made their claim before their policy renewal date our investigator said she was satisfied LV didn’t act unfairly or unreasonably in charging them an additional premium,

-- 1 of 4 --

as the increase was in line with the price offered to new customers of the same risk. She said different insurers might have a different view on risk, and as Mr and Mrs C had been able to get a cheaper quote elsewhere, she was satisfied they’d been no financial loss. And just because the price of an insurance policy has increased and there might be similar, cheaper policies available, it doesn’t necessarily mean that something has gone wrong. But she said Mr and Mrs C had told us they specifically asked LV what the financial implications of making a claim would be and weren’t told of any other costs or financial consequences. As LV hadn’t provided a copy of the call our investigator said she accepted what Mr and Mrs C had said about it, and as they asked a specific question LV should have given them this information. So she felt LV could have handled this better and there was a loss of expectation. So she directed LV to pay Mr and Mrs C £100 compensation for the distress and frustration they’d experienced. Neither party accepted our investigator’s opinion. LV said they couldn’t agree the £100 compensation our investigator had directed them to pay as Mr and Mrs C’s policy sets out the impact of making a claim between the renewal offer and renewal date. And this is something their claims team wouldn’t be expected to make a customer aware of. Mr and Mrs C have said the following: - • LV’s failure to disclose the significant financial implications of making a claim when they asked specifically what costs they’d face, was not simply “poor customer service” but a material omission. • Had they known their premium would increase by over £500, they would almost certainly have handled the repair privately. • Keeping LV’s pricing principles confidential means that as customers they’re being asked to accept a huge increase without any transparency about how this has been calculated. • From conversations with LV’s underground service supplier they believe the repair is likely to have cost LV around £1,000. On that basis they say LV will recoup their costs within about two years and after that will be profiting at their expense. • They question how they are supposed to prevent an underground water pipe springing a leak. And say they acted immediately and responsibly as soon as this became apparent, and expected support from their home insurer. • They incurred private plumber’s fees of around £130 and the £100 excess and a further £120 when the leak was traced and fixed, which they paid direct. • They consider essential service providers are profiteering and our service would have taken a stronger line against this. • In light of the costs they’d incurred and the significant distress and frustration caused by LV’s lack of transparency they believe compensation in the region of £350 to £500 would be appropriate.

-- 2 of 4 --

Our investigator put the issues Mr and Mrs C had raised about the costs they’d incurred to LV. They responded saying that the complaint Mr and Mrs C had raised was about their renewal price and they’d need to contact the claims team to discuss any further issues. The case then came to me for a decision. I issued a provisional decision on 20 March 2026 and in it I said: - I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. The complaint Mr and Mrs C raised with LV was about the pricing of their policy and how their renewal quotation increased after they made a claim. So that’s all I’m able to consider. If they wish to pursue the issue of the costs they paid in relation to their claim, this is something they’ll have to first raise with LV. The renewal price sent to Mr and Mrs C on 2 May 2025 was based on there having been no changes to their information since their last renewal. But there was then a change as they made a claim on 12 May 2025, before their policy renewed. LV have provided the call Mr C made when he reported the leak. During the call there was a discussion about how the claim might be covered under Mr and Mrs C’s policy and the excesses that applied for trace and access and additional damage cover. Following this discussion Mr C confirmed that he wanted LV to instruct their underground services supplier to attend and trace and repair the leak. He was advised of the excess that he’d be required to pay. While I agree that Mr C wanted to know how much he would be required to pay this was in relation to LV instructing one of their suppliers to attend his property. There was no discussion about the renewal or the impact making a claim might have on this. Had a specific question been asked about this, I’d have expected LV to deal with it, but it wasn’t. So I don’t accept that Mr and Mrs C were given misleading or incomplete information and I don’t think LV need to pay them any compensation. The policy terms and conditions booklet issued to Mr and Mrs C by LV states that it should be kept safe with all the documents sent for an overall view of their policy, and that it’s part of the insurance contract. The general conditions make it clear that policyholders have an obligation to ensure all information held by LV is correct. They include the following “At renewal you must tell us if any information has changed – this includes any claims.” And “We may amend your policy with the correct information, apply any relevant terms and conditions, and collect any additional premium (including any administration charges)”. So I’m satisfied that Mr and Mrs C should have been aware that making a claim could impact on the premium they were charged. And as their claim was made before renewal LV did nothing wrong in reviewing their premium and issuing an updated renewal quotation. Mr and Mrs C have said that had they been made aware that a claim was likely to lead to an increase in their premium they’d have arranged to locate and repair the leak privately. As I’ve said from the information provided in their policy booklet I think they should have been aware that making a claim could impact on their renewal premium. And at the time they made the decision to proceed with a claim neither they, nor LV, knew how much the repair was likely to cost, so I can’t say with any certainty they’d have made a different decision. At renewal customers are advised to ensure that a policy still meets their needs. And one of

-- 3 of 4 --

the factors a customer will take into account is the cost of a policy. So I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that in pricing Mr and Mrs C’s renewal LV were planning to make back the cost of the claim over a couple of years. As if a customer doesn’t like their renewal price they’ll seek alternative cover elsewhere, as Mr and Mrs C did. Mr and Mrs C did receive support from LV who dealt with their claim subject to payment of the relevant policy excesses. So they received the cover provided by their policy. When offering cover either to a new customer or on renewal an insurer will decide how much to charge them for it. LV’s policies are underwritten so this means they evaluate the risk of the consumer making a claim and how much that claim is likely to cost. We can’t tell insurers how much they should charge customers. We can only consider whether a customer has been treated fairly and offered the same price as any other customer in the same circumstances. Insurers provide details of their underwriting and pricing policies to us on the basis that we keep this information confidential. This is commercially sensitive information so we regard the request for confidentiality to be reasonable. But I’ve reviewed the information provided by LV in this case and I’m satisfied that the premium offered to Mr and Mrs C was what they’d have offered another customer in similar circumstances. So I’m satisfied that LV haven’t done anything wrong and I’m not asking them to do anything. Neither Mr and Mrs C or LV have responded to my provisional 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. As the parties haven’t responded to my provisional findings I don’t intend to change my opinion on this complaint. My final decision For the reasons set out above my final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr and Mrs C’s complaint about Liverpool Victoria Company Limited trading as LV=. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C and Mrs C to accept or reject my decision before 11 May 2026. Patricia O'Leary Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --