Intact Insurance UK Limited · DRN-5867783

The complaint Mr J complains about the price quoted by Intact Insurance UK Limited (“Intact”) to renew his home insurance policy. What happened Mr J received a quote to renew his policy which he says was significantly higher than what he’d paid the previous year. Mr J complained about the renewal price which he said was unfair on the basis there wasn’t any change in his personal circumstances, his claims history or level of cover. Intact responded and explained the price they’d charged was correct. They said they take many factors into account, such as inflation and changes in external risk, when rating and pricing a policy. Intact explained the price was calculated by looking at factors such as Mr J’s details, his property details, his claims experience as well as the claims experience in Mr J’s area and geographical location. They acknowledged Mr J would like a more detailed explanation for the price increase but explained this information was commercially sensitive. Our investigator looked into things for Mr J. He thought Intact hadn’t treated Mr J unfairly in relation to the pricing. Mr J 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 J 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 J paid £381.63 for his policy in 2024, but he was then quoted £755.63 in 2025. This represents a 98% increase from the price paid by Mr J in 2024, so I understand why Mr J is concerned about the price increase. Intact have provided me with confidential business sensitive information to explain how Mr J’s price was calculated. I’m afraid I can’t share this with Mr J because it’s commercially sensitive, but I’ve checked it carefully. And I’m satisfied the price Mr J was quoted has been calculated correctly and fairly and I’ve seen no evidence that other Intact customers in Mr J’s position will have been charged a lower premium. As mentioned above, I can’t provide specific detail about Intact’s risk model, but I’ve seen information which shows the risk assessment carried out by Intact, and this relates to the

-- 1 of 3 --

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 how Intact rated the flood risk to Mr J’s property. The information shows how this factor was rated and the reasons why it impacted the price. I acknowledge Mr J says the flood risk to his property is low and he has never had a flood in the 40 years he has lived at his property. I do understand why, based on this, Mr J believes a flood risk factor shouldn’t have such an impact on his policy, but insurers will take several factors into account when assessing flood risk. And in this case, Intact have explained why they changed their view of the flood risk, and I can’t say these reasons are unfair. I can see Mr J says his 2024 policy didn’t make reference to ‘Flood Re’ but his 2025 policy did, so he questions whether there has been a mistake in applying this to his 2025 policy. Intact have explained how the flood risk was rated for Mr J’s 2025 renewal, and this did involve making such a change – so I can’t say there has been a mistake. Mr J also says there’s been no change to the location of his property, his personal circumstances or his claims history, from the year before. But, even though, from a customer’s perspective, all factors may still be the same from the year before, insurers will regularly refresh their pricing model based on wider claims experience and to predict future underwriting costs. That’s what’s happened here, so I can’t say Intact have 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 Intact have acted unfairly here. This forms part of Intact’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 J’s premium was no different to what was used for any other customer in the same circumstances. I do acknowledge Mr J’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 that Intact did remind Mr J 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 J fairly, I think Intact also acted in line with requirements set out under ICOBS. I do appreciate Mr J wanted Intact 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 Intact have acted unreasonably in not providing Mr J with details of the specific ratings and loadings used to calculate the price. Mr J says he suspects the price increase is linked to him requesting claim forms as part of his Legal Expenses cover, despite him never having completed the forms. I can see, in their complaint response, Intact confirmed no claims had been recorded against Mr J’s policy and that Legal Expenses claims weren’t taken into account when calculating the premium. Having reviewed the pricing information provided by Intact, I can’t see Mr J’s request under

-- 2 of 3 --

his Legal Expenses cover has been taken into account when rating and pricing his home insurance policy. I understand why Mr J has complained, and I hope he feels reassured that I’ve checked the pricing information from Intact. But I can’t say they’ve made a mistake or treated Mr J unfairly. I wish to reassure Mr J 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 Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Paviter Dhaddy Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --