Renewal transparency and the conservatory claim

Because Mrs Chen is a retail customer, the FCA's Consumer Duty applies: the insurer must act to deliver good outcomes on products and services, price and value, consumer understanding, and consumer support. The renewal is also subject to the FCA's renewal transparency rules for home insurance. The insurer should have sent a renewal notice in good time (the rules require at least 21 days before renewal for home insurance), showing the previous year's premium and encouraging the customer to shop around. Automatic renewal must be clearly explained, and the customer must be able to cancel. The agent's 'don't worry' is not clear, fair and not misleading. The monthly payment option must disclose the 18% APR, the total amount payable, and the difference from annual payment. The agent should have asked about the conservatory and the dog, recorded the answers, and explained any effect on cover or premium. Age alone does not make Mrs Chen vulnerable, but the firm should consider whether she needs additional support. The call should be recorded and retained; the firm should be able to show what was said. The renewal statement's question about alterations was a clear question, but the agent's failure to follow up is a service failure.

Probably not. This is consumer insurance, so the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 applies. The insurer must show that it asked a clear question and that Mrs Chen made a misrepresentation. The renewal statement did ask about alterations, so the question was clear. But Mrs Chen told the agent about the conservatory and the dog during the call. The agent is the insurer's representative for this purpose; the agent's knowledge is imputed to the insurer. If the agent failed to record the information, that is the insurer's internal failure, not Mrs Chen's non-disclosure. The same applies to the dog: if the policy asked about pets, she disclosed it to the agent. The insurer cannot rely on a fact that its own agent was told. At most, the insurer could adjust the policy prospectively for the increased rebuild cost and charge the correct premium, but it should not decline the storm claim on non-disclosure grounds. If the conservatory increased the sum insured and the policy has an average clause, the insurer might argue underinsurance; but it would be unfair to rely on a sum insured it failed to update after being told. The claim should be assessed on its merits under the storm peril.

Handle the complaint under the firm's complaints procedure: acknowledge promptly, investigate the call recording and renewal file, and give a final response within eight weeks. If the firm cannot resolve it, it must tell Mrs Chen about the Financial Ombudsman Service and the six-month referral period. Redress should include:

• Paying the £9,000 claim, less the policy excess, if the storm damage is otherwise covered.
• Correcting the policy record for the conservatory and the dog, and explaining any premium adjustment.
• Refunding any monthly payment charges or interest that were not properly disclosed.
• Paying compensation for distress and inconvenience, typically a modest sum, and for any financial loss caused by the misleading 'don't worry' statement.
• Offering to cancel or re-rate the policy without penalty if Mrs Chen wants to switch.
• Reviewing the call handling and renewal process to prevent recurrence.

The firm should also consider whether the premium increase represents fair value and whether the agent's failure to record changes is a systemic issue. The complaint file should show the reasoning and the redress calculation.