Xbridge Limited · DRN-6044740

The complaint Mr and Mrs L complained that Xbridge Limited (“Xbridge”) mis-sold an insurance policy for their property. I’ll refer to Mr L for ease. What happened Mr L called Xbridge on 4 June 2025. He said he specifically asked for buildings insurance having recently purchased a flat without any contents. Halfway through the call he said the agent mentioned “fixtures and fittings”. Mr L said he thought this was an added extra that covered the bathroom/kitchen not electrics/furniture as contents cover would. Mr L explained that he didn’t read the policy documents that were provided. But he later realised he hadn’t been provided with the buildings cover he wanted. So he arranged alternative cover and requested a refund from Xbridge. He said it should pay him 50% of the difference between the policy premium and the refund he received on cancellation. The business declined his request so he complained. In its final complaint response Xbridge said it had listened to the sales call. It said its agent asked if Mr L was looking to insure his fixtures and fittings or did he want buildings cover. The business said he confirmed fixtures and fittings cover was requied. Xbridge said its agent recapped the cover toward the end of the call, which Mr L didn’t question. The business said it relies on its customers to confirm the cover they need. It maintained that it provided the cover Mr L requested. Mr L didn’t think Xbridge had treated him fairly and referred the matter to our service. Our investigator agreed with the business that it had provided the cover agreed during the call. Mr L didn’t accept our investigator’s findings and asked for an ombudsman to consider his complaint. It 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. Having done so I’m not upholding Mr L’s complaint. Let me explain. We expect Xbridge to communicate clearly and act on the instructions it receives. I’ve focused on whether it did that here. I’ve listened to the call recording from 4 June 2025 when Mr L agreed the policy. He asked for a quote for buildings insurance. Xbridge’s agent located Mr L’s details as he’d arranged cover using its services previously. Mr L provided details of the property he was requesting cover for. Around six and half minutes into the call the agent says, “are you looking to insure

-- 1 of 2 --

the fixtures and fittings or the buildings cover”. Mr L responded, “..we would like to insure the fixtures and fittings”. Just under 12 minutes into the call Xbridge’s agent says, “..so a quick summary then. So with fittings cover, excess levels are to follow”. The agent then goes through the policy excess fees that will apply. The agent didn’t mention buildings cover. Towards the end of the call Xbridge’s agent said he was putting Mr L through to an automated message that will give important information on his policy and how to access his documents. He explained it was important that Mr L listened to the message in full. The call recording ended before the message played. But it was made clear to Mr L that he would need to listen to this message so he could access his policy documents. In his submissions to our service Mr L said a password was needed to access his policy documents via the online account. I note his admission that he did not read his policy documents. Also his comments that he accepts 50% of the responsibility as a result of this. I’ve thought carefully about what was discussed during the sales call. I don’t dispute that Mr L initially said he wanted a quote for buildings insurance. But Xbridge’s agent specifically asked if he wanted buildings or fixtures and fittings cover. Mr L confirmed he wanted fixtures and fittings cover. This isn’t what he wanted. And I acknowledge his explanation that he thought fixtures and fittings was an add-on feature. But he was given an either or choice. He chose fixtures and fittings, not buildings cover. I don’t think it was unreasonable for Xbridge’s agent to double check the cover Mr L wanted. Mr L misunderstood the options given to him and chose incorrectly. But the options were clearly stated. Had Mr L read his policy documents, which I think is reasonable to expect, this issue will have been identified at an early juncture. Based on this information I don’t think Xbridge’s agent did anything wrong. I’ve thought about Mr L’s reference to the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) principles and the Consumer Duty. But I don’t accept that Xbridge has acted unfairly when considering these regulations. I’m satisfied that Mr L was given clear information. He was also provided with written documentation that confirmed he had no buildings cover. If Mr L had read his policy documents he will have identified the problem at the time of reading. I’m not persuaded, having considered his comments about the FCA regulations, that the business treated him unfairly. Having considered all of this I don’t think Xbridge treated Mr and Mrs L unfairly when it arranged the policy it did based on the information Mr L provided. So, I can’t reasonably ask it to do anymore. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L and Mrs L to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --