Rental Property Decision Reference 2025-0167

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2025
• Reference: 2025-0167
• Date: 02 December 2025
• Subject Matter: Rental Property
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Claim handling delays or issues,Dissatisfaction with general customer service, Rejection of claim - non-disclosure

Decision Ref:

2025-0167

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Rental Property

Conduct(s) complained of:

Claim handling delays or issues

Dissatisfaction with general customer service

Rejection of claim - non-disclosure

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The Complainant made a claim on a home insurance policy issued by the Provider (the

"Policy").

The complaint concerns the Provider's request for a retroactive payment of the Policy

premium before confirming the outcome of the claim. It also concerns the Provider's

handling of the subsequent complaint.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant explains that, in January 2022, he lodged a claim for roof damage on an

investment property with the Provider. The Provider sent out a claims inspector who

assessed the damage.

The Complainant explains that before he received a decision on the claim, he received a

telephone call from the Provider's underwriting team who advised that the amount of flat

roof on the property was 32% and not 20% that the Complainant had put down on the

form at Policy inception.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Complainant says that the Provider told the Complainant that in order for the claim to

progress, he would have to pay in retrospect the difference between a 32% policy and a

20% policy. The Complainant states he paid this premium which was €236.72 (two

hundred and thirty-six Euros and seventy-two Cents). The Provider thereafter declined the

claim.

The Complainant states in the Complaint Form that:

"It was made very clear to me on the call that unless I paid to have my policy

backdated and upgraded the claim would not progress. Even at the time it felt very

wrong that they would only give me an answer to my claim if I paid them, and I felt

I was being blackmailed then."

The Complainant sets out that he complained to the Provider that he felt that he was

misled by the underwriting team. He states that the Provider implied that it would be

worth his while proceeding with paying the premium "as why else would he pay additional

monies".

He further states that:

"they claim that their claims team and underwriting team are not allowed to talk

about things but I have significant doubts about that not only officially but

unofficially as well".

The Complainant asserts that rather than investigating his complaint, the Provider

reviewed the validity of his claim. He states that the Provider said they stood behind their

decision to decline the claim and feel they have no responsibility for charging him

hundreds of euros to find out the answer to the claim.

The Complainant states that he submitted a formal complaint as he feels like he was

"blackmailed" by the Provider. The Complainant contends that his complaint was not

about the claim.

In support of his position the Complainant relies on a telephone call he had he had with

the Provider on 7 June 2022. The Complainant states that the recording of the call,

"confirms everything that I have been saying that I was blackmailed by [the Provider] in

order for the claim to progress, with an implication that my claim would be successful and

it would be worth my while".