TICORP Ltd · DRN-6227381

The complaint Mr S has complained that TICORP Ltd (trading as Avanti Travel Insurance) won’t honour an online quote he received for a travel insurance policy. What happened On 14 October 2025, Mr S went online to look for travel insurance. After inputting his details, he received three quotes. However, when he tried to purchase the cheapest ‘Deluxe’ option, he was unable to complete the transaction. Instead, he was asked to call TICORP. Upon calling and running through all of his details again, including the medical screening, he was told that he had exceeded the medical score for the Deluxe policy and so that policy was not an option for him. He was offered two alternative, more expensive policies. Our investigator thought that TICORP had acted reasonably in the circumstances. Mr S disagrees and so the complaint has been passed to me for a 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. Mr S declared a number of health conditions during the medical screening, which resulted in the medical risk score exceeding the threshold for the Deluxe policy. It’s important to make clear that we’re not the industry regulator. We have no power to regulate the financial businesses we cover, or to direct them to change their processes or procedures. Insurers are entitled to decide what risks they are willing to cover, and what they charge for the cost of that cover, as long as they exercise their judgement fairly and consistently and in accordance with their internal guidelines. This service wouldn’t normally get involved with how they calculate risk or their premium pricing structures. What I can look at is whether TICORP has treated Mr S fairly and reasonably. An important consideration of that is whether it has treated him the same as any other applicant in a similar position. Based on the underwriting evidence provided by TICORP (supplied by the insurer), I’m satisfied that the declaration of the relevant set of medical conditions would result in ineligibility for the Deluxe policy. Overall, I consider it reasonable that it declined to sell him that policy but offered two alternatives instead. Mr S doesn’t dispute that insurers are entitled to decline cover where underwriting criteria are not met. However, the crux of his complaint is that the online system returned a quote for three levels of cover, including the Deluxe policy, after he had completed the medical screening. He says the questions he was asked over the phone were a repeat of the ones he had already answered online.

-- 1 of 2 --

He says that a key question is whether the automated system displayed a policy option that was not actually available for purchase, based on the medical information that had already been provided. However, he already knows that answer to that – because he was unable to complete the purchase online and, when he then rang, it was confirmed to him that the policy was not available to someone with his medical history. So yes, it did display a quote that was not actually available to him. Mr S would essentially like us to carry out a forensic investigation of the system records relating to the quote. The ombudsman was established to be a quick and informal service. As such, I’m looking at what I consider to be fair and reasonable. And I consider I have enough information available already to be able to do that. Underwriting evidence has been provided by TICORP. We are unable to share this with Mr S as it is classed as business sensitive information. However, as already mentioned, I’m satisfied that his declared health conditions correctly resulted in an ineligibility for the Deluxe cover as the medical threshold was exceeded. The question then is, why did the online system give the impression that it was available for purchase. TICORP’s final response letter of 15 October 2025 explains why the online system presented the results that it did. It said that its system does not currently have the functionality to hide individual declined policy types and would only be able to do this if a medical decline affected all three levels of cover. The quote for the Deluxe policy appeared to be significantly lower because the quote was incomplete. I’m satisfied that this is a reasonable explanation. Mr S has talked about the quotes being ‘made available for acceptance’, however that is not quite the case. Because, when he clicked the ‘buy’ button, he was unable to continue and was advised instead to call TICORP. He has talked about a commercial contract having been created. I’m not persuaded that was the case, as the quote hadn’t been accepted due to him being prevented from doing so. It’s possible that a court might see things differently, however, when looking at what is fair and reasonable, I’m satisfied that there isn’t any obligation on TICORP to honour the quote. Ideally, Mr S wouldn’t have been able to see a cheaper quote that wasn’t actually available to him. As a gesture of goodwill, TICORP has offered to apply a discount to the two policies that he is able to purchase. This seems to be a reasonable response to his complaint. I’m sympathetic to Mr S’s position. He had an expectation that he would be able to purchase the Deluxe policy at the price displayed on the website. However, that expectation was short-lived, as he was then told over the phone that it was not available to him at all. Overall, I’m unable to conclude that TICORP has done anything significantly wrong. It follows that I do not uphold the complaint. My final decision For the reasons set out above, my decision is that I do not uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Carole Clark Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --