Ageas Retail Limited · DRN-6252922

The complaint Mrs W has complained about the information provided by Ageas Retail Limited (“ARL”) in relation to her pet insurance policy. Reference to ARL includes its agents. And premium figures will be rounded for simplicity. What happened The circumstances aren’t in dispute, so I’ll summarise the main points: • In 2021, Mrs W took out a pet lifetime insurance policy for her dog through ARL. The policy has been underwritten by different insurers over the years. • The policy renewed annually and the premium increased as follows: o 2021 - £170 o 2022 - £190 o 2023 - £240 o 2024 - £480 o 2025 - £840 • Mrs W complained about the 2025 increase. She noted increases were to be expected, especially after making a claim in 2023, but thought the extent of the increases were unreasonable and unjustified. I understand she chose not to renew the policy in 2025, as she found the cost unaffordable. • This Service considered a complaint against the latest insurer. That complaint has been resolved separately. The current complaint concerns ARL’s role in the premium increases as the intermediary who sold the policy. • ARL said it had been clear with Mrs W throughout that annual premium increases were to be expected, and particularly so if a claim has been made. • Our investigator didn’t think ARL had gone far enough to inform Mrs W about the likely premium rises she could expect from the policy. As a result, he asked ARL to pay £360 compensation. • Mrs W agreed with this suggestion, but ARL didn’t. As an agreement wasn’t reached, the complaint has been passed to me. My provisional decision I recently issued a provisional decision in which I said: I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

-- 1 of 3 --

• When considering what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and, where appropriate, what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. Whilst I’ve read and taken into account everything said by both parties, I’ll only comment on the points I think are relevant when reaching a fair outcome to this dispute. That’s a reflection of the informal nature of this Service. • As our investigator has explained, ARL isn’t responsible for the premium charged at any time. The insurer underwriting the policy is responsible for the premium. So, I won’t be able to consider the premium itself in this complaint against ARL. • When selling and renewing a policy, ARL is required to provide information that’s clear, fair and not misleading, such that the policyholder can make an informed decision about whether the policy is right for them. • In the context of a pet lifetime policy, I would expect that information to include clear warnings about how the cost of the policy is likely to increase at each renewal, especially if claims are made. • This is because the cost of pet lifetime policies tend to increase significantly as a pet ages, and even more significantly if a claim is made. Also, the nature of these policies and the wider pet insurance market means considerable cover can be lost if the policyholder moves to another insurer. So clear warnings are important. • However, I wouldn’t usually expect the information to be specific about the extent to which premiums may increase in the future. ARL isn’t an underwriter, so it can’t control premiums. And even underwriters can’t reasonably predict with accuracy the likely premium increases in the future, given the range of factors involved. • At the initial sale in 2021, ARL said “Our pets are more likely to be affected by illness as they get older. This means that your insurance premium may increase each year even if you haven’t made a claim. This increase will be more significant if you have claimed.” It also noted that it would increase the excess in later years. ARL repeated this information at each of the renewals. • As a result, I think Mrs W could reasonably have expected a significant annual premium increase – and a ‘more significant’ increase if she made a claim. I recognise the word ‘significant’ is subjective. But, as above, I don’t think ARL could reasonably be more specific. And I think the word conveys the key point that a premium increase is likely to be large, substantial, impactful or similar. I don’t think it suggests, for example, that increases limited to inflation only are to be expected. • Whilst the premium increases, particularly in 2024 and 2025, were no doubt unwelcome for Mrs W, I’m satisfied they weren’t entirely unexpected given the steps ARL had taken to warn her of significant or ‘more significant’ increases. I also note these steeper increases followed a claim, which is in line with the warnings ARL provided throughout. • In these circumstances, I’m satisfied the steps ARL took meant it provided Mrs W with information that was clear, fair and not misleading, such that she could make an informed decision about whether the policy was right for her. That included clear warnings about how the cost of the policy was likely to increase at each renewal, especially if claims were made.

-- 2 of 3 --

• Because of that, I consider ARL acted fairly and reasonably. It follows that I don’t think it needs to be pay compensation. 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. Neither party responded to my provisional decision. With no challenge or further comment to consider, I remain satisfied ARL acted fairly and reasonably for the reasons set out in my provisional decision. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs W to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. James Neville Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --