Kestrel Home Insurance: renewal pricing, vulnerability and a stalled claim
Kestrel Home Insurance has 400,000 home policies sold direct. Mrs Okafor, aged 74, has been a customer for nine consecutive years. Her buildings and contents premium has risen from £418 in 2021 to £612 at the January 2025 renewal. Kestrel's own pricing data shows that a new customer with identical risk characteristics would be quoted £389. She has paid by monthly direct debit since 2022, incurring a 24.9% APR credit charge. She has early-stage dementia; her daughter has twice called the call centre to act on her behalf. In February 2025 a pipe burst and she submitted a claim for £7,400 – for accidental damage to kitchen units and flooring. The claim form is available only through the online portal. She posted a paper form, which was logged as "unidentified" and then lost. Eleven weeks after notification no decision has been made. Kestrel's board last reviewed its fair value assessment for home insurance in 2023.
1. Which FCA rules and Consumer Duty outcomes are engaged by these facts?
Read the worked answer
Pricing. The general insurance pricing practices rules, in force for home and motor since 1 January 2022, prohibit price walking: the renewal price offered to an existing customer must not be higher than the equivalent new-business price for the same risk. £612 against £389 is a clear breach. The same rules require an opt-in to auto-renewal after four consecutive renewals; Mrs Okafor is at nine, so her continued auto-renewal is likely a second breach unless an opt-in is evidenced.
Price and value outcome. Total price includes premium finance. A 24.9% APR charge on the whole premium, offered to a customer with cognitive impairment, needs a documented fair value assessment; without one, the firm cannot show the price is reasonable relative to the benefits.
Consumer understanding outcome. Communications and the portal-only claim route assume a digitally capable customer. Information must be understandable to the actual customer, and vulnerability must be recognised and recorded.
Consumer support outcome. Eleven weeks with no decision, a lost form and no alternative channel is a foreseeable harm to a customer who cannot use the portal. The cross-cutting obligation to act in good faith and avoid foreseeable harm is engaged.
Vulnerability. Under FG21/1 and the Duty, health conditions including cognitive impairment are a characteristic of vulnerability. Two calls from a daughter should have triggered a flag, a named contact and reasonable adjustments.
2. What must Kestrel do now for Mrs Okafor, and is individual remediation enough?
Read the worked answer
The claim. There is no coverage reason for delay. Pay the £7,400 (subject to any genuine excess or policy limit), with interest for the delay, and confirm the decision in a channel she can use – a telephone call with her daughter present (with consent) and a letter in large print.
The pricing. Refund the difference between the renewal price charged and the equivalent new-business price, and consider how far back the overcharge runs. Where the breach has persisted, a customer-focused approach is to remediate for the whole period affected, not just the latest renewal, plus interest.
Premium finance. Review the 24.9% APR charge against the fair value assessment and refund any element that cannot be justified, particularly where a vulnerable customer was defaulted into monthly payments.
Records and complaints. Record the vulnerability flag, log the contact preferences, issue a complaint response with FOS referral rights, and stop the auto-renewal unless a valid opt-in exists.
Is individual redress enough? No. The pricing rule breach is systemic: the MI shows the renewal price exceeded the new-business price for this customer, which strongly suggests it is happening across the book. Kestrel should run a full data exercise, identify all affected customers, remediate proactively, and consider whether the breach should be notified to the FCA. Remediating only when a customer complains is itself a Consumer Duty failure.
3. What governance failings does this reveal, and what should the board do?
Read the worked answer
Fair value assessments. The board last reviewed the home insurance assessment in 2023. Under PROD 4 and the price and value outcome, fair value must be assessed before launch, on any material change, and at least annually, with board challenge recorded. A 2025 price and commission structure is running on a two-year-old assessment.
MI and monitoring. The firm should be tracking renewal versus new-business price by cohort, credit-charge take-up, claims turnaround times, complaint volumes and upheld rates, and vulnerability flags. None of these appear to have escalated. The Board should ask why the pricing MI did not surface a 57% premium increase on a long-standing customer.
Consumer Duty governance. The Duty requires the board to agree the firm's approach, appoint a Consumer Duty champion, and review outcomes annually. A 2023 assessment plus no vulnerability reporting suggests the framework exists on paper only.
SM&CR. A named senior manager should be accountable for the pricing rules and for the consumer support outcome. The board should require a remediation plan with owners and dates, a customer-outcome dashboard, a root-cause review of the claims-intake process (including an offline channel and a paper-form process), and training on vulnerability recognition.
Reporting. The pricing breach is a notifiable matter; the firm should consider its obligations to notify the FCA, and should not wait for the regulator to find it. The test is not whether the process was followed but whether customers actually got good outcomes.