AXA Insurance UK Plc · DRN-5977492

The complaint Mrs C and Mr C complain about the price quoted by AXA Insurance UK Plc (“AXA”) to renew their home insurance policy. Mr C has acted as the main representative during the complaint process. So, for ease of reference, I will refer to any actions taken, or comments made, by either Mrs C or Mr C as “Mr C” throughout the decision. What happened Mr C received a quote to renew his policy which he says was significantly higher than what he’d paid the previous year. So, Mr C complained about the price increase and about AXA’s refusal to provide him with a detailed breakdown showing how they calculated the price. AXA responded and explained that the price had been calculated correctly based on the risk involved. They said they consider various factors such as the type of property and claims history. They said their analysis of the product’s performance had also led them to make some changes. They explained the information around how they price their policies was commercially sensitive and couldn’t be shared with Mr C. Our investigator looked into things for Mr C. He thought AXA hadn’t treated Mr C unfairly in relation to the pricing. Mr C disagreed so the matter has come to me for a decision. 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’ve decided not to uphold the complaint. I understand Mr C will be disappointed by this but I’ll explain why I have made this decision. The role of this service when looking at complaints about insurance pricing isn’t to tell a business what they should charge or to determine a price for the insurance they offer. This is a commercial judgement and for them to decide. But we can look to see whether we agree a consumer has been treated fairly – so is there anything which demonstrates they’ve been treated differently or less favourably. If we think someone has been treated unfairly, we can set out what we think is right to address this unfairness. I can see Mr C paid £310.66 for his policy in 2024, but he was then quoted £1,790.16 in 2025. This represents a 476% increase from the price paid by Mr C in 2024, so I understand why Mr C is concerned about the price increase. AXA have provided me with confidential business sensitive information to explain how Mr C’s price was calculated. I’m afraid I can’t share this with Mr C because it’s commercially sensitive, but I’ve checked it carefully. And I’m satisfied the price Mr C was quoted has been calculated correctly and fairly and I’ve seen no evidence that other AXA customers in Mr C’s position will have been charged a lower premium.

-- 1 of 3 --

As mentioned above, I can’t provide specific detail about AXA’s risk model, but I’ve seen the specific rating factors used by AXA to calculate the quote, and they relate to the presentation of risk. I can’t say there are any rating factors applied here which are unusual or uncommon for insurers to use when assessing risk for a home insurance policy. One factor relates to Mr C’s claims history. The information shows Mr C reported two incidents to AXA during the previous policy year, with one leading to a claim in which AXA incurred an outlay. It’s not unusual or uncommon for claims to have an impact on premiums, and often this can be significant - which is the case here. AXA have provided information which shows the specific ratings which were impacted by this, so I can’t say they’ve acted unfairly. Another factor which has contributed to the price relates to a general price increase. It’s been widely publicised over the last few years that the price of home insurance has increased due to claims inflation and insurers facing rising costs in settling claims – and this includes the cost of labour and building parts and materials. This again isn’t unusual or uncommon, so I can’t say AXA have acted unfairly here. This forms part of AXA’s pricing model so it applies to all policies. I think that’s important here as it demonstrates the pricing model used to calculate Mr C’s premium was no different to what was used for any other customer in the same circumstances. I do acknowledge Mr C’s concern about the renewal quote when compared to the price he’d paid the year before. But it’s for a business to decide what risks they’re prepared to cover and how much weight to attach to those risks - different insurers will apply different factors. That’s not to say an insurer offering a higher premium has made an error compared to an insurer offering a cheaper premium – but rather, it reflects the different approach they’ve decided to take to risk. This similarly applies to rating factors and loadings. It’s for an insurer to decide what rating factors and loadings to apply to a policy. In addition to this, I’ve seen the renewal invite sent to Mr C in 2025 and I can see AXA did remind Mr C that he could shop around to see if he could get a better price. Section 6.5 of the Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (“ICOBS”) requires a business to provide specific wording about the benefits of shopping around, in circumstances where there have been at least four renewals. So, as well as treating Mr C fairly, I think AXA also acted in line with requirements set out under ICOBS. I do appreciate Mr C wanted AXA to provide more detail around what specific factors led to the renewal quote. Pricing is an area where the information which sits behind an insurer’s explanation will often be commercially sensitive. So, I don’t think AXA have acted unreasonably in not providing Mr C with details of the specific ratings and loadings used to calculate the price. I understand why Mr C has complained, and I hope he feels reassured that I’ve checked the pricing information from AXA. But I can’t say they’ve made a mistake or treated Mr C unfairly. I wish to reassure Mr C I’ve read and considered everything he has sent in, but if I haven’t mentioned a particular point or piece of evidence, it isn’t because I haven’t seen it or thought about it. It’s just that I don’t feel I need to reference it to explain my decision. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy and is a reflection of the informal nature of our service. My final decision For the reasons I have given, it is my final decision that the complaint is not upheld. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs C and Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.

-- 2 of 3 --

Paviter Dhaddy Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --