Millions of consumers are being “ripped off” on their home and travel insurance, according to consumer group Which?, which has launched a rare super-complaint over widespread issues with claims handling and unclear policy terms.
Which? claims that home insurance and single-trip travel insurance have some of the lowest claims acceptance rates, with just 63% of home insurance claims being accepted and 80.4% of single-trip travel insurance claims approved. The group argues that poor customer experiences, including confusion over coverage and inadequate claims handling, have left many customers frustrated and financially vulnerable.
A Campaign to End the Insurance “Rip-Off”
Over the past year, Which? has been campaigning to end what it describes as the “insurance rip-off,” producing several research reports that highlight the scale of the problem. The reports reveal how consumers are often misled by policy exclusions and are subjected to subpar treatment during the claims process.
Now, Which? is taking the next step with a super-complaint, urging regulators to take action on three key issues: poor claims-handling, misleading sales processes, and the failure to enforce Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations and other relevant laws.
Rocio Concha, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Which?, said: “This super-complaint is a major intervention. We believe it’s necessary because serious failings in home and travel insurance have been tolerated for far too long by both the insurance industry and its regulator. The evidence that these markets are not functioning well is overwhelming, and we’ve heard heartbreaking stories from people who’ve had worse experiences with their insurers than the distressing events that led to their claims.”
Regulatory Response Expected
Under the law, the regulator has 90 days to respond to Which?’s super-complaint. The complaint, which addresses systemic issues across the home and travel insurance sectors, follows a series of investigations by Which? into poor customer experiences. Many of the cases involve customers being denied payouts for reasons that were not made clear at the time of purchasing their policies.
One customer, for example, shared her experience of a holiday cut short by a flight issue just two hours into her journey to Egypt. Although her flights were refunded, her insurer, Axa, refused to cover accommodation and additional travel costs, claiming the trip had “technically” taken place. After Which?’s intervention, Axa apologized, settled the claim in full, and offered compensation for the delay.
An Axa spokesperson said, “We apologise for the issues, and upon further review, we have settled her claim in full and offered compensation in recognition of the delays.”
Disputed Claims and Policy Exclusions
In another case uncovered by Which?, a man whose home was damaged by a burst water pipe found that his insurer, Churchill, refused to cover the damage to the pipe itself, citing a lack of coverage for wear and tear. The customer was told he would need additional coverage for such issues.
Which? argued that these exclusions should be made much clearer to customers when they purchase their policies. The customer eventually canceled his claim and paid for the redecoration costs himself.
A spokesperson for Churchill said: “The plumber confirmed the leak was due to wear and tear, which is typically excluded under home insurance policies. We advised that the customer could claim for the plumber’s investigation and damage caused by accessing the pipe, as well as any water damage. However, the damage to the pipe itself would not be covered.”
The spokesperson added: “If the customer provides further documentation about the repairs to his property, we are happy to review the claim.”
A Call for Transparency and Fairness
Which?’s super-complaint highlights the urgent need for greater transparency in the insurance industry, particularly around exclusions and claims processes. With many consumers left in the dark about what their policies actually cover, the group is calling on regulators to take swift action to ensure fair treatment for all policyholders.
Related topics:
