Howserv Limited trading as Staysure · DRN-6175069

The complaint Mr W and Mr Z are unhappy with the service they received from Howserv Limited trading as Staysure. For ease I have referred to Mr W as the complainant throughout. What happened Mr W took out an annual insurance policy in February 2025. He was the policyholder and cover was provided to both him and his partner, Mr Z, under the policy. In March, Mr W was injured abroad and needed access to his policy documents. He logged on to the relevant system but was unable to view the policy he had taken out. Instead, the system showed a separate policy that belonged to his partner, Mr Z. Mr W contacted Staysure to request urgent access to his policy information whilst he was abroad, but they said they were unable to provide the policy document without authorisation from Mr Z, who was unavailable at that time. Authorisation from Mr Z was later given and Staysure provided the information needed. But Mr W remained unhappy with what had happened. Our investigator said Staysure could have been more helpful in the circumstances, so he asked them to pay £75 compensation to recognise the frustration and inconvenience caused to Mr W. Staysure didn’t agree. In summary they said in the absence of Mr Z’s consent, they were unable to take any further action. They believe they acted appropriately and in line with data protection requirements. The case has been passed to me to make 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. The relevant regulatory rules say firms must conduct their business with care and diligence, and treat their customers fairly. Staysure has explained Mr W’s partner used their shared email address when he had previously taken out a separate policy. So that was why Mr W had been sent to Mr Z’s policy when he logged in using that email address. Staysure said there was a risk by merging the two policies under one account, so they needed Mr W’s partner’s consent. I don’t think it was unreasonable for Staysure to have processes in place to protect data, and I understand why they initially requested the authorisation of Mr Z in the first instance.

-- 1 of 2 --

But when Mr W explained Mr Z wasn’t available and as he was contacting them to obtain his own policy document, I don’t think Staysure could have done more to try and help their policy holder whilst he was injured abroad. I’m also mindful that this webchat took over 30 minutes, during what was already a difficult time for Mr W. Mr W also contacted Staysure by phone later that same day to try and resolve the issue, but they were still unable to help and said data protection rules prevented them from merging the accounts. Staysure had already confirmed with their security questions that Mr W was the policy holder of the document he wanted access to, so I think they could have tried other ways to provide him with a copy of his policy document – such as manually emailing the document to him - and then merged the accounts at a later time when Mr Z was also available. It was only when Mr W called back again when Mr Z was with him that Staysure merged the accounts, and he was able to obtain his own policy information. It doesn’t appear that Mr W had any other way of accessing his policy document, as I can’t see that Staysure sent one out when the policy started. And as our investigator has already pointed out, Staysure also doesn’t appear to warn or prevent different people from using the same email address when different policies are taken out. So Mr W wouldn’t have known he needed his partner’s consent in the event of an emergency abroad. In response to our view, Staysure explained their automated systems created customer profiles to ensure compliance with data protection requirements and to mitigate the risk of unauthorised disclosure of personal data. However, I’m mindful in this case Mr W was able to view his partner’s policy when he logged in, without Mr Z’s authorisation, because they had both used the same email address when the different policies were taken out. Taking everything into account, in the circumstances of this individual case, I agree with the investigator that Staysure could’ve tried an alternative way to provide Mr W with a copy of his policy document during what was an already difficult time abroad. I think £75 is fair compensation for this and the inconvenience caused to Mr W trying to resolve the matter himself. Your text here Putting things right Howserv Limited trading as Staysure need to put things right by: • Paying £75 compensation to Mr W for their poor customer service in the circumstances. My final decision I uphold this complaint against Howserv Limited trading as Staysure and direct them to put things right in the way I’ve outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W and Mr Z to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Georgina Gill Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --