Inter Partner Assistance SA · DRN-6249208

The complaint Mr L and Ms W are unhappy that Inter Partner Assistance SA declined a claim they made on their travel insurance policy. What happened Mr L and Ms W claimed on their travel insurance policy for various expenses when Mr L became unwell whilst abroad. IPA declined the claim because they said that Mr L hadn’t accurately disclosed his medical history. Mr L and Ms W complained to IPA but they maintained their decision was fair. However, they accepted the claim hadn’t been handled as well as it should have been and offered £150 compensation for this. Unhappy, Mr L complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our investigator looked into what happened and let IPA know her initial thoughts were that the claim had been declined fairly. IPA reviewed the claim and agreed. So they offered to settle it, pay 8% simple interest on the settlement and the compensation they’d already offered. Our investigator thought this was fair. Mr L and Ms W didn’t agree. Mr L said that it was a matter of principle and they’d had to pay the costs upfront. He also highlighted how stressful the situation had been and said the proposed compensation didn’t reflect the cost of their time and trouble. So, the complaint was referred 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 rules and industry guidelines say that IPA has a responsibility to handle claims promptly and fairly. And they shouldn’t reject a claim unreasonably. It’s no longer disputed that IPA shouldn’t have rejected the claim. And it’s accepted that they didn’t offer Mr L and Ms W a good level of customer service. So, the key issue for me to determine is whether the offer to settle the claim and the compensation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I appreciate Mr L’s strength of feeling about the way in which IPA handled things. I understand the situation was very stressful and that the decline of the claim made things more difficult and frustrating. However, I think IPA’s offer to put things right is fair in all the circumstances. I say that because: • Expenses that are covered under the policy will be settled in line with the remaining policy terms and limits. That’s what should have happened at the outset and IPA’s offer reflects that cover will be provided. • I appreciate that Mr L and Ms W had to pay the expenses and claim them back.

-- 1 of 2 --

That’s not unusual in relation to travel insurance claims. And, in any event, the 8% simple interest that will be paid on top of the settlement reflects that Mr L and Ms W were out of pocket for the expenses for some time. That will be paid from one month after the medical history was received. I think this fairly reflects that Mr L and Ms W continued to be out of pocket for some time. • There would, unfortunately, have been some stress associated with Mr L becoming unwell and needing to claim on the policy. I accept that Mr L and Ms W were caused more than the levels of frustration and annoyance that could reasonably be expected. I think this had an impact on them and caused them avoidable distress and inconvenience. However, I think a total of £150 compensation fairly reflects the impact on Mr L and Ms W. Putting things right IPA needs to put things right by: • Settling the claim in line with the remaining policy terms and conditions. They should also pay 8% simple interest on the settlement from one month after the claim was submitted until the date of settlement. If IPA considers it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to take off income tax from any interest paid, it should tell Mr L and Ms W how much it’s taken off. It should also give them a certificate showing this if they ask for one. That way Mr L and Ms W can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs, if appropriate. • Paying £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience if they haven’t done so already. My final decision I’m upholding this complaint and direct Inter Partner Assistance SA 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 L and Ms W to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Anna Wilshaw Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --