Covea Insurance plc · DRN-5870523

The complaint Mr and Mrs R complain that Covea Insurance plc didn’t assess their flood risk fairly, when it increased their home insurance premium. Mr and Mrs R are joint policyholders, but most of the communication regarding the complaint has been from Mr R. So I’ll refer mainly to Mr R in my decision. What happened Mr R had a home insurance policy with Covea. In March 2025, Covea sent Mr R renewal documentation outlining the new policy premium. In April 2025, Mr R contacted Covea about the significant premium increase. Covea said it assessed an increased flood risk and ceded this to Flood Re (the scheme), a joint initiative between the Government and insurers, to help customers access affordable flood cover. Mr R agreed to take out the policy with flood cover excluded and this reduced the premium. But in May 2025, he complained to Covea and said his own research, into the history of flooding, didn’t show any flooding issues in his neighbourhood, or any flood risk. Covea issued a complaint response in July 2025. It maintained its decision to apply an increased premium for the flood risk it assessed. And it said it had no control over the cost of the flood risk premium set by the scheme. Mr R referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He was unhappy Covea had used alternative sources to that of the Govermment and Environmental Agency. And he said his property had the lowest possible risk category. He was also unhappy with how Covea responded to his complaint. He wanted an apology, a further explanation from Covea about the increased risk, and for Covea to reinstate flood cover for a reasonable premium. The Investigator said Covea acted fairly when calculating Mr R’s renewal premium, based on its assessment of the flood risk. So they didn’t recommend the complaint be upheld. Mr R didn’t agree. He said Covea didn’t initially explain the sudden premium increase. And he said Covea’s position on the flood risk is contrary to widely published facts. He also said the insurer of the building, for the building owners, held a different position to Covea’s. Because the complaint couldn’t be resolved, it’s 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 should first set out that the Financial Ombudsman Service is a dispute resolution service, not the regulator of the insurance industry. So it's not our role to fine and punish a business. Our role is to look at whether a business has acted fairly in the circumstances of the complaint and decide what it needs to do where it hasn’t.

-- 1 of 3 --

It’s also important to note that our service can’t tell an insurer how it should assess risk or how it should price its policies. The risk of insuring the insured interest is Covea’s. So it’s right that it, like any insurer, should decide how it assesses risk. But it must do so fairly. This means, among other things, applying its risk assessments consistently. As part of its evidence to us, Covea sent part of its technical underwriting guidance, including the data it relied on, in assessing the flood risk. I’m unable to share this with Mr R because it’s commercially sensitive. But I’ve reviewed it and I’m satisfied Covea acted fairly in relying on this information, to assess the flood risk, and refer the flood risk cover to the scheme. I’m also satisfied Covea applied its approach in the same way it would to any of its other policyholders. I appreciate Mr R thinks there isn’t a sufficient flood risk. But as outlined above, it’s Covea’s decision how it assesses risk. This includes what factors it considers and what information it gathers and analyses. I note Mr R’s comments about the building insurer, but different insurers have different thresholds and tolerances. And this doesn’t mean Covea’s assessment was wrong or unreasonable. Mr R wants Covea to reinstate flood cover for a reasonable premium. I’ve explained above why Covea acted fairly in assessing the flood risk and ceding this to the scheme. And because Covea has no control over the flood risk premium under the scheme, I don’t consider it reasonable to direct it to provide this cover at a reduced premium. Mr R said Covea didn’t explain the premium increase until he made contact. The evidence I’ve seen shows Covea attempted to call Mr R in April 2025, a few days after it sent him the renewal documents, to discuss the premium increase and the scheme. This is in line with what Covea said is its usual approach, to call out as a courtesy, and I think this is fair in the circumstances. In any case, I’m satisfied the relevant information was communicated to Mr R before he made his decision on whether to renew, so I don’t think he was impacted substantially by the lack of an immediate explanation. Mr R also raised concerns about Covea’s attitude and the nature of its response to his complaint. I’ve reviewed Mr R’s comments, but as explained above, I’m satisfied the information Covea relied on is commercially sensitive. So I don’t think it was required to share this with Mr R. I’m also satisfied Covea issued its complaint response within the timeframe allowed under the rules. Overall, for the reasons outlined above, and having reviewed all the available evidence, I’m not persuaded Covea treated Mr R unfairly in how it responded to this complaint. So I won’t ask it to do anything else.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs R to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Monjur Alam Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --