DRN-5969169

The complaint Mr M complains that Wakam have unfairly increased his pet insurance premiums for his dog R and provided poor service during his claims. What happened Mr M held a lifetime policy for his dog R with Wakam for which the monthly premium was £34.42. In the policy year 2025/2026 he made two claims, and on renewal his premiums were increased to £63.54 per month. Mr M was unhappy with both the service and delays he experience during the claims journey, and the renewal price, and so he complained. Wakam offered £200 compensation for the delays and service together with paying 8% interest on the delayed payments, but they didn’t uphold the complaint about the premium price. Mr M wasn’t happy with this and so he brought his complaint to us. One of our investigators looked into his, but he thought Wakam had acted fairly. Mr M disagreed with our investigator’s view, and so the case has come to me to review. 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. I’m not upholding this complaint, and I’ll explain why. Claim Delays Wakam have agreed that the service provided fell below the standard Mr M was entitled to. In particular, they agree there were delays and lack of updates during the claims process. The claims were both made on 28 March 2025 and paid out on 10 June 2025 (£1284.44) and 8 August 2025 (£325.04). Wakam aim to pay out claims within 8 weeks but these claims took 10 and 19 weeks respectively to pay. Mr M is unhappy because he says that these delays were unnecessary as Wakam were already in possession of all the information that they say was delaying the process. Wakam have accepted that their service should have been better and awarded £200 compensation for the delays. They have also awarded 8% interest on the claim payments

-- 1 of 3 --

from 4 weeks after the claims were made until they were paid. Mr M says Wakam should do more. He thinks they should pay the 20% co-payment that he has had to pay. I’ve thought about what Mr M has said, but this wouldn’t be our approach. The co-payment is a contractual term that he has agreed to when he took out the policy in order to reduce his premiums, and has been fairly applied. He would have had to pay it regardless of when the claims were paid, and so I can see no reason why would direct this not to be paid. In terms of the redress offered for service issues, I can see that Wakam have awarded interest on the delayed payments, which is the first thing we would expect them to do. They have awarded it from four weeks after the claim date which seems more than fair given that their service standards expect them to settle claims within eight weeks. This interest payment should put Mr M back in the financial position he would have been in if the claims had been paid on time. So, I’ve then looked at the compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay. Wakam have paid £200. We would consider payments of up to £300 fair when there has been repeated small errors of one larger error requiring effort to sort out and causing stress over a few days or even weeks. I can see how frustrating it will have been for Mr M to have been waiting to be reimbursed for this extended period of time, and especially because the reason for the delay appears to be unfounded. However, I do think that having paid the interest, a further £200 is in line with what we would award for several weeks of inconvenience and being out of pocket, so I don’t propose to increase this. I understand the interest and compensation payment have already been made to Mr M following Wakam’s final response letter. The renewal premium Mr M took out the lifetime policy for R on 3 August 2024. When the policy renewed on 3 August 2025, the premiums increased from £34.42 a month to £63.54 a month. Or £412.72 a year to £762.37 a year. Wakam have explained that it is normal for pet insurance premiums to increase each year to take into account both wider cost increases such as the rising cost of vet care and treatments, and also individual factors such as the pet’s age, and their claims history – including the number and value of the claims. We can’t tell an insurer how much they should charge for their premiums or what factors they take into account, but we can look to see if they have applied these fairly in Mr M’s case. Wakam have provided us with information which shows how they calculate the premiums, and which factors have affected the premiums for R. Although I’m unable to share these with Mr M, they show that the premium has been affected by an increase in vets fees generally, R’s age, and the two claims – with the claims being the biggest factor. I am satisfied that these factors have been applied in the same way for Mr M as they would have been for anyone else in his position having made two claims. I’m therefore satisfied that these have been applied fairly. Mr M has also raised a query about why the claim for a foot infection was factored into the 2025/26 renewal when it wasn’t paid until 8 August 2025, which is after the renewal date. Wakam have confirmed that it is normal for all claims during a policy year to be factored into

-- 2 of 3 --

a renewal price, regardless of when they are settled, as it is the date of the insured event that’s important to the assessment of risk. This is the same in other types of insurance such as motor. Therefore, I’m satisfied that Wakam have acted fairly in the renewal price increase. My final decision My decision is that I’m not upholding Mr M’s complaint about Wakam. . Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Joanne Ward Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --