DRN-6045357

The complaint Mr C complains that Domestic & General Insurance Plc (‘D&G’) unfairly charged him for direct debit payments for another customer’s appliance warranty. What happened In 2024 Mr C's bank details were incorrectly linked to another customer’s appliance insurance policy held by D&G. As a result, payments were taken from his account in error. Mr C raised a complaint and D&G refunded the payment and paid £50 compensation. However, in April and May 2025 further payments were taken and Mr C contacted D&G to report this. D&G said the additional payments occurred because the direct debit mandate remained active, and only Mr C could cancel it. But they did refund the additional payments once evidence was provided of them. Mr C remained unhappy with how D&G had handled the matter and ultimately referred his complaint to this Service. He said the issue shouldn't have continued after his complaint and that D&G's response to his complaint was poor and unfairly shifted responsibility on to him to cancel the direct debit. I wrote to Mr C and D&G and set out that I was minded to uphold the complaint and to award a total compensation sum of £100. I said while I didn’t think that D&G’s advice to cancel the direct debit was unreasonable in itself; I didn’t think this removed D&G’s responsibilities for what went wrong, given the direct debit was initially due to their own error. In addition, given the issue had occurred previously and considering the time taken to fully resolve matters, I thought this was likely to have caused additional distress and inconvenience and I didn’t’ think the £50 compensation D&G had paid fairly reflected the overall distress and inconvenience experienced. Both Mr C and D&G didn’t agree with my provisional findings. Mr C didn’t feel that a total award of £100 fully reflected the overall impact this matter had caused him. D&G said the £50 they had already paid fairly reflected the impact caused as the additional payments occurred because the direct debit remained active despite Mr C being advised to cancel it. As both parties have now responded to my provisional findings, I will now set out my final decision below. 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. Having done so, I remain of the view that what I set in my provisional findings is a fair and reasonable conclusion to this particular complaint. It's not disputed that D&G made an error in linking Mr C's bank details to another customer's policy. I'm satisfied they took steps to put that right when it was reported to them, including refunding their initial payment and paying £50 compensation. However, the main issue I

-- 1 of 2 --

need to decide is whether D&G did enough to put things right overall; particularly given that further payments were taken after the complaint was raised. D&G say the later payments weren't caused by a further error on their part, and instead they occurred because the direct debit mandate remained active even though they told Mr C to cancel it. I’ve thought about this carefully, and while I don't think D&G's advice to Mr C was unreasonable, given how direct debit arrangements operate, I don't think this removes D&G responsibility for the situation arising in the first place, as the direct debit existed due to their error. Additionally, I think it's relevant that the issue had occurred before and then continued which took some time to fully resolve and included the need for Mr C to provide evidence before the additional payments were refunded. In my view, this is likely to have caused Mr C additional distress and inconvenience beyond the impact of the initial error alone. I think this is particularly relevant when considering Mr C's concerns about a data protection breach. This service does not make findings in relation to whether a business breached data protection laws under the General Data Protection Regulation – that would be for the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’). Instead, our role is to decide what's fair and reasonable and complaints about financial businesses, but I have taken into account the impact of Mr C of his details being incorrectly linked to another customers policy when considering what I think is fair compensation. Taking everything into account, I think the £50 compensation already paid doesn't fully reflect the overall distressed inconvenience caused to Mr C. And in the circumstances, I'm satisfied that a total award £100, inclusive of the £50 already paid, is fair and reasonable. I appreciate this may not be the level of compensation Mr C had hoped for, and it may not ultimately change matters for him, given his larger concerns over D&G’s data handling obligations. But I consider a total award of £100 to be in line with the level of compensation appropriate to these issues, and I’m satisfied this produces a fair and reasonable outcome in this particular complaint. And I’m satisfied my decision is in line with DISP 3.6.1, which requires me to determine a complaint by reference to what is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. My final decision For the reasons I have set out above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I direct Domestic & General Insurance Plc to pay Mr C a further £50 compensation, in addition to the £50 already raised. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Stephen Howard Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --