AXA Insurance UK Plc · DRN-6230346

The complaint R has complained about its commercial property insurer, AXA Insurance UK Plc because it said it would not be renewing R’s policy. R is represented by its director, Mr I. What happened AXA sent a prompt to R to remind it that it was time to renew its policy. AXA then, seven days before the existing policy was due to end, told R that it would not renew the policy. Mr I complained and AXA issued a final response which said its decision to not renew the policy was based on its underwriting and acceptance criteria. Unhappy with AXA’s reply, Mr I complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He said AXA was treating R unfairly. He said this was particularly the case given the short notice AXA had given. He subsequently said R had incurred costs because an alternative policy had cost more and rent had been lost which couldn’t be recovered because R had lost the benefit for that which had been provided by the AXA policy. Our Investigator spoke to AXA. It explained, in summary, that the relationship between it and R had broken down, such that it hadn’t wanted to renew the policy. But it accepted it hadn’t been truthful with R about that. So it said it would pay £100 compensation. Our Investigator, noting there was no obligation on AXA to renew the policy, felt that was fair. Mr I said there were still three live insurance policies R held with AXA, so he didn’t think it was fair to say there had likely been a relationship breakdown. Mr I said AXA was clearly victimising R because of a County Court Judgment R had secured against AXA and one of its Chief Executive Officers. He said searching for alternative cover, at short notice and on the basis of the incorrect reasoning given by AXA, had been stressful and expensive. The complaint was referred for an Ombudsman’s 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. I appreciate R had to find alternative cover when AXA decided to not offer renewal terms. But no insurer is bound to renew a policy. With a renewal equating to a new contract. In contrast an insurer has far less latitude when a policy is still live – it cannot just decide to bring the contract to a premature end. It was only seven days before renewal was expected to occur when AXA took the decision to not offer terms. That is not an ideal timeframe but I’m satisfied it afforded R reasonable notice in the circumstances during which to find alternative cover. And I note Mr I has provided evidence of a new policy starting on the day the AXA policy was due to renew.

-- 1 of 2 --

R then wasn’t unable to find alternative cover. The new policy cost more than AXA charged R the year before. But prices do increase year on year. If the price and level of cover were not suitable to R, I’m not persuaded that was due to any fault of AXA. As I’ve said, it was always up to AXA whether to offer renewal or not. It could have chosen not to and not offered a reason. AXA’s failure here was in offering a reason which was untrue. However, AXA having stated that R did not comply with its underwriting wouldn’t have affected whether other insurers would cover R. After all every insurer decides and applies its own risk criteria. AXA has offered £100 compensation to R, to apologise for its error and make up for any inconvenience that error caused. I’m satisfied that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances here. My final decision I uphold this complaint. I require AXA Insurance UK Plc to pay £100 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask R to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Fiona Robinson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --