DRN-5955085

The complaint Mr V is unhappy with what Allianz Insurance Plc did after he took out a new pet insurance policy with it which he then claimed on. What happened In July 2025 Mr V took out pet insurance with Alliance covering his two dogs. At the end of the month he told Allianz policy documents hadn’t been received. At the start of August he reiterated those concerns and said he was particularly concerned as one of his dogs (C) was very unwell. And he’d received an email from Allianz saying his claim wouldn’t be covered as his policy had ended. In response to Mr V’s complaint Allianz said a system error meant the policy he took out hadn’t been activated. That meant his claim was considered under an old and expired policy. It arranged for backdated cover to be put in place and considered (and paid) the claims Mr V made under its terms. It accepted this had been a particularly difficult time for Mr V as C sadly passed away later in August. It paid him £300 as a gesture of goodwill. Our investigator agreed this had been a very distressing experience for Mr V. But he thought the £300 Allianz had offered was enough to recognise the impact on him of what it got wrong when setting up his policy and dealing with his claim. However, he didn’t agree that compensated him for financial loss. Mr V had to pay treatment costs for C on his credit card and had incurred interest on those amounts. That wouldn’t have been the case if Allianz had acted as it should. He said it should reimburse those charges from the date Mr V made payment until the date the claim settlement was paid. Allianz didn’t agree. It said the £300 it already paid was inclusive of interest Mr V had to pay on his credit card and didn’t think any further amount was due to him. Mr V didn’t agree either. He highlighted a case study on our website which he thought demonstrated the compensation in this case should be increased. And he highlighted the different areas where Allianz had been at fault here. He thought the cumulative impact of that warranted a higher payment (in addition to the refund of credit card interest). So I need to reach a final 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. The relevant rules and industry guidelines say Allianz has a responsibility to handle claims promptly and fairly. It shouldn’t reject a claim unreasonably.

-- 1 of 2 --

I don’t think there’s any dispute Allianz got a number of things wrong here. In particular Mr V’s policy wasn’t activated after he took it out. Allianz didn’t then respond to the queries he raised about that. And because his policy wasn’t activated Allianz wrongly declined the claim he made and that wasn’t rectified until the end of September 2025. The outstanding issue is whether there’s more Allianz needs to do to put things right. It’s offered £300 as a gesture of goodwill which it says already includes reimbursement of the interest Mr V paid on his credit card. It explained in response to our investigator’s view its proposed figure to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr V is therefore £175. I agree Mr V should be reimbursed for the credit card interest he was charged. Allianz appears to have accepted he wouldn’t have paid that if it hadn’t wrongly declined his claim. But I don’t agree £175 is sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience Mr V was caused by what it got wrong. I think it’s reasonable to say the impact of its initial error in failing to set up the policy and respond to Mr V about that was then compounded by it wrongly declining his claim. And Allianz has accepted there was around a two month delay in payment then being made. I also recognise this was an extremely difficult time for Mr V when he had to make significant financial outlay on his credit card at the same time as dealing with the loss of his dog. Taking all of that into account I agree with our investigator that a payment for distress and inconvenience of £300 is appropriate (and the refund of credit card interest should be on top of that). I appreciate Mr V believes a higher amount should be paid and I’ve taken into account his reasons for saying that. But while Mr V has focussed in his submissions on what Allianz got wrong he hasn’t described an impact on him from that which makes me think a higher figure should be paid. I’ve also looked at the case study Mr V highlighted. In that we said the business should pay the complainant £200. However, the circumstances there aren’t analogous to his. In any event each case is considered on its own merits. For the reasons I’ve explained in this decision I think what Allianz got wrong here and the impact on Mr V actually warrants a higher payment than was awarded in the case he highlighted. Putting things right I understand Allianz has already paid Mr V £300. So it will in addition need to refund him the interest paid on his credit card for costs that should have been covered by his policy from the date payment was made until the date Allianz settled the claim (I understand the interest amounts to £125.65). My final decision I’ve decided to uphold this complaint. Allianz Insurance Plc will need to put things right by doing what I’ve said in this decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr V to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. James Park Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --