DRN-6106955

The complaint Ms N complains that William Russell Europe SRL has unfairly changed her residency on her private medical insurance policy, increasing her premium. What happened Ms N has an international private medical insurance policy and has held this cover for a number of years. This policy is arranged through William Russell. In 2025 William Russell advised Ms N that at the point of renewal it was changing her country of residence on her policy from the current resident country I’ll refer to as ‘A’, to a country I’ll refer to as ‘H’. It said this was because over the previous two years nearly all the claims made for medical treatment had been received in H. This change meant that Ms N’s premium at renewal increased substantially. Ms N didn’t think this was fair and complained to William Russell. She said that her country of residence was still A and it was unfair for her residency to be changed because of the location of the treatment. William Russell didn’t alter its stance and so Ms N brought her complaint to us. Our investigator looked into the matter but didn’t uphold Ms N’s complaint. She didn’t think it was unreasonable for William Russell to amend the country of residence based on the available evidence. Ms N disagreed with our investigator. As no agreement could be reached, the matter has been passed to me to decide. 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 understand Ms N’s strength of feeling on the matter, and I want to reassure her that I’ve seen and considered the submissions that have been provided about the complaint. We are an informal dispute resolution service, set up as a free alternative to the courts for consumers. In deciding this complaint I’ve focused on what I consider to be the heart of the complaint rather than commenting on every issue or point made in turn. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy to Ms N. Rather it reflects the informal nature of our service, its remit and my role in it. Firstly, it is important to point out that William Russell are acting as an administrator and intermediary in this case. Ms N has complained about the wording in the policy and terms which she says she disputed, along with comments about the validity of this change based on what is detailed in the policy wording. The actual insurer of the policy is not regulated within the UK and therefore I cannot consider any aspect of the complaint relating to the policy terms and whether they have been applied correctly. She would have to take that

-- 1 of 2 --

aspect of her complaint up with the insurer. I can only consider the actions of William Russell as an intermediary/administrator when renewing her policy. And based on the information provided, I’m satisfied that it was reasonable for William Russell to amend Ms N’s country of residence at renewal. The claims history for Ms N shows that she has almost exclusively received treatment in H over a two-year period and no claims were made for treatment in A. I appreciate Ms N has said that she didn’t intend to stay in H and that, as far as she was concerned, her residency was still A. But the evidence suggests that she hadn’t been residing in A for quite some time. I therefore don’t think that it is unfair to conclude for the purposes of the policy that Ms N was living in H rather than just visiting this country. William Russell has said that it is the resident country that determines the premium which is set by the insurer. It says it changed Ms N’s country of residence to ensure she was paying the correct premium for someone who was living in H. And William Russell has said that the insurer agreed with this course of action. As mentioned before, we don’t have any jurisdiction to consider the insurer’s actions in this matter, but I’m satisfied that William Russell was acting appropriately when making the change to Ms N’s residence so that the correct premium could be calculated, as required by the insurer. I don’t think it was unreasonable of William Russell to do this. Unfortunately, while I appreciate this action has resulted in a much higher insurance premium for Ms N, I’m not persuaded that William Russell has acted unfairly. I don’t require it to do anything more. I’m aware Ms N has also recently informed us of another issue in relation to a mid-term change in residency. However, this doesn’t form part of this complaint and so I cannot look into that aspect here. Should Ms N still wish to complain about this aspect she will need to raise this separately. My final decision For the reasons mentioned above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms N to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Jenny Giles Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --