Addressing poor consumer outcomes in home and travel insurance

Executive summary

Home and travel insurance products are widely held by UK consumers, and hugely important for society and the economy. In 2024, 32 million UK adults held contents insurance and 29 million held buildings insurance, whilst 15 million and 13 million UK adults held annual and single-trip travel insurance, respectively [1].  

Yet these markets are failing consumers in many ways. Consumers are routinely treated poorly during the claims-handling process, in breach of Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules. Claims are often rejected, unlike many other insurance products. In some cases, the terms and conditions of policies are unfairly disadvantageous to consumers, either very obviously as drafted, or in the way in which they can be interpreted and applied. 

These failures have caused consumers avoidable financial and emotional harm over many years – and continue to do so. They are also steadily eroding firms’ incentives to adhere to regulation, and consumer trust in insurance markets.

Why Which? is submitting this super-complaint

The FCA’s July 2025 claims-handling report highlighted ‘many areas where improvements need to be made’ across the 15 home insurance firms and 8 travel insurance firms reviewed. This included evidence of ‘ongoing customer harm’. 

Despite these findings, the FCA reached no conclusions in the report on whether any of the reviewed firms had failed to comply with FCA rules, nor was a plan to determine this outlined. Little was said about what the FCA is doing to hold the hundreds of other firms across these markets to account on the issues they had identified. Worryingly, the FCA has identified many of these issues before, and failed to address them.

In its 2025 claims-handling report, the FCA acknowledged some issues with consumer understanding of cover for storm damage in home insurance and it has asked the industry to address this. However it failed to identify and address other issues, including the wider prevalence of low claims acceptance rates, poor consumer understanding of products, and the presence of terms which deviate from requirements under insurance and consumer law. 

This amounts to a pattern of consistent failure by the FCA to meet its statutory consumer protection objective in these markets to secure ‘an appropriate degree of protection for consumers’. We are concerned insurers are being allowed to break the law – including FCA rules, and insurance and consumer legal requirements for the protection of consumers more generally. The FCA has also underestimated problems with how these markets are functioning, which are causing further consumer harm, and merit attention.

After careful consideration, Which? has decided, under its statutory powers, to submit a formal super-complaint regarding certain features of the consumer home and travel insurance markets that are significantly damaging the interests of consumers. 

The relevant markets

There are two relevant markets for this super-complaint:

• The retail home insurance market which covers policies distributed to consumers in the UK, including contents-only, buildings-only and combined buildings and contents policies.
• The retail travel insurance market which covers policies distributed to consumers in the UK, including single-trip, European annual, and worldwide annual policies.

Features of the relevant markets significantly damaging the interests of consumers

There are three features of the home insurance and travel insurance markets significantly damaging the interests of consumers:

• poor claims handling; 
• inappropriate sales processes; and
• a lack of application and enforcement of FCA rules and other relevant law.

We cite a wealth of evidence in support of these, from Which?, the FCA and other sources. This includes four reports we have published since we launched our public campaign calling on the FCA to End the Insurance Rip-off in Summer 2024. These cover:

• Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) decisions involving delay, distress and inconvenience caused by insurers;
• consumer harm in the insurance claims process;
• consumer confusion around general insurance; and
• potentially unfair flood and storm definitions in home insurance policies.

We also include two new sources of evidence: 

1. Analysis of policy wordings conducted with Fairer Finance, exploring the possible factors leading to variation in claims acceptance rates between firms.
2. Legal analysis of a sample of policies and product information documents, conducted by an expert external barrister. Details of this are contained within Annex B.  

What action Which? wants

Which? wants this super-complaint to lead to a reset of the markets for home and travel insurance so that they properly serve the needs of consumers, who rely on these products and firms at some of the most difficult points in their lives. 

We expect this to lead to consumers:

• purchasing insurance products that better meet their needs and reasonable expectations; 
• better understanding relevant limitations of their insurance cover;
• experiencing fewer problems when making claims;
• receiving more appropriate support from their insurer, especially if they are in vulnerable circumstances; and
• having fewer claims rejected.

To deliver these outcomes, Which? wants action in three areas: 

• Recommendation 1: The FCA should urgently intervene to tackle the failure of home and travel insurance firms to comply with their legal obligations, taking formal enforcement action where necessary to force action and act as a deterrent. 
• Recommendation 2: The FCA should launch a market study to address the market dynamics driving poor consumer outcomes in the home and travel insurance markets. 
• Recommendation 3: The FCA and the government should conduct a joint initiative to review consumer protection legal frameworks in insurance and how they are operating in practice, identifying key areas where these need strengthening.

1 Background and overview

Here we provide further background on:

• Which?’s longstanding concerns with the home and travel insurance markets;
• the FCA’s 2025 home and travel insurance claims-handling report; 
• similar FCA findings from previous FCA reviews; and
• why Which? is submitting this super-complaint.

We also provide an overview of the super-complaint, which covers:

• the relevant markets;
• the features of the relevant markets significantly damaging the interests of consumers;
• key relevant areas of law; and
• evidence.

1.1 Which?’s longstanding concerns with the home and travel insurance markets

Insurance markets are critical to the functioning of a modern economy, enabling risk pooling and underpinning household financial resilience which ultimately facilitates economic growth. Buildings insurance, for example, is critical to the maintenance of the mortgage market, without which many consumers could never hope to own their own home. 

Home and travel insurance products are widely held by UK consumers. However, these markets are not working well. Consumers are routinely treated poorly during the process, in breach of FCA rules. Claims are often rejected, unlike many other insurance products. In some cases, the terms and conditions of policies are unfair to consumers, either very obviously as drafted (See Annex B: Expert legal review of home and travel insurance policies), or in the way in which they are being interpreted and applied. These issues are causing avoidable financial and emotional harm for consumers. The harm arising includes financial losses, the time taken to pursue claims and complaints, and the emotional impact this can have on people. Rejected or badly-handled claims can wreak havoc on people’s lives in the aftermath of an event such as a fire, burglary or medical problem abroad – often when people are struggling with other practical and emotional challenges. The impact on people’s mental health is particularly concerning, with prolonged claims, unreasonable requests and unfair decisions causing frustration, distress and robbing people of sleep. There are even cases where people’s physical health is affected, such as where dampness is not properly remedied in a person’s home leading to respiratory illness.

For too long, substandard levels of service and customer outcomes have been tolerated, steadily eroding both firms’ incentives to adhere to regulation and consumer trust in insurance markets. Insurance has persistently registered the second lowest level of consumer trust of any major consumer-facing industry, according to Which?’s Consumer Insight Tracker survey. Only social media consistently scores lower. Consumer case studies demonstrate the poor regard in which the industry is held

1.2 The FCA’s 2025 home and travel insurance claims-handling report

The most relevant recent piece of FCA work to this super-complaint is the FCA’s claims-handling arrangements report, published in July 2025. This review was launched with a sentence outlining its scope in the FCA’s 2024-25 business plan [2]:

‘Our multi-firm work will also look at how swiftly the insurance industry responds to claims, including where customers are more likely to show characteristics of vulnerability.'

No terms of reference were published. The FCA published an update on the scope of the review in December 2024, which was broader than the original:

‘Understanding insurers’ claims handling arrangements and whether systems, controls, governance and oversight structures drive good consumer outcomes.’ 

We supported this broader scope. We made clear to the FCA that, in addition to claims-handling processes, its review should address issues with how products are designed and sold to consumers. These issues often contribute to difficulties experienced by consumers when they make claims. We highlighted that in order to meet Consumer Duty requirements to act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers, the FCA’s guidance says firms should identify and tackle the factors that are leading to poor outcomes. We also made clear to the FCA that this review should lead to robust action if the FCA found issues with non-compliance with FCA rules and wider law. 

We engaged extensively with the FCA throughout this review. This included presenting to the FCA on the four policy research reports summarised in Annex A, covering: FOS decisions involving delay, distress and inconvenience caused by insurers; issues with claims-handling processes; how insurance sales are potentially contributing to rejected claims; and storm and flood definitions.

The FCA’s review was the first in-depth review of consumer general insurance claims-handling practices in over a decade, with the last published in 2014. It was just the third such review since the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the predecessor to the FCA, began regulating general insurance in 2005. Prior to this, voluntary codes were in place in these markets. 

In July 2025 the FCA published the outcome of its claims-handling arrangements review. It found what appear to us to be actual and potential non-compliance with FCA rules across many of the 15 home insurance firms and eight travel insurance firms reviewed. The FCA grouped the ‘many areas where improvements need to be made’ into the following four key areas, under which we’ve cited some of the most notable findings – including the FCA’s concerns about ‘ongoing customer harm’:

The FCA said in its claims-handling report that it would give feedback to the 15 home insurance providers and eight travel insurance providers covered by its 2024-25 claims-handling review. However, it did not publish any explicit conclusions on whether any of the reviewed firms had failed to comply with FCA rules, or set out a plan to determine this. Little was said about what the FCA is doing to hold the hundreds of other firms in these markets to account on the issues identified. The regulator simply said other firms should consider the findings and that regulatory tools will be used ‘as appropriate’. 

The FCA acknowledged some issues with consumer understanding of cover for storm damage in home insurance and it has asked the industry to address this. However it failed to identify and address a range of other issues across these markets leading to poor customer outcomes, including the wider prevalence of low claims acceptance rates, generally poor consumer understanding of products, and the presence of terms which deviate from requirements under insurance and consumer law. 

In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request we submitted in August 2025, the FCA confirmed it is ‘considering any actions and interventions that may be required’ and ‘assessing whether the use of any of our regulatory tools would be appropriate’. It also said that the claims-handling review concerned FCA rules only, not also wider consumer law. See Annex C for full details of the FOI request.

1.3 Similar findings from previous FCA reviews

Many of the failures identified in the 2025 claims-handling report were not new. The FCA’s last such in-depth review focused on claims-handling in consumer general insurance was published over a decade ago in 2014. As with the 2025 report, it focused on home and travel insurance. The 2014 review included surveys of consumers and industry professionals. It identified seven key issues, [3] which included consumers not being updated about the progress of their claims [4] and firms not providing sufficient oversight of outsourced claims and supply chains. Similar issues were raised in the FCA’s 2025 claims-handling report [5]. 

In 2023, the FCA reviewed how home and motor insurers were supporting customers in financial difficulty and handling claims. It found examples of good practice, but also areas where firms needed to improve. In particular, it concluded that:

• ‘The time taken to assess claims varies considerably and we saw examples where the time taken to resolve a claim was significant. We found too that the volume of complaints relating to claims handling and the number of rejected claims is increasing.’
• ‘We are concerned that a number of our firms were unable to provide data to demonstrate the number of vulnerable customers receiving support. We saw significant variation in how firms identified financially vulnerable customers. We also saw examples where policies were sold through chains of firms, where it was not clear how each firm had considered their own approach to vulnerability.’
• ‘Some firms were not yet able to demonstrate that they have effective information to monitor consumer outcomes. In particular, we noted that more work is needed to ensure good flows of information between intermediaries and manufacturers.’

The FCA’s 2024 multi-firm review of outcomes monitoring under the Consumer Duty covered 20 large firms in general and life insurance. It identified yet more related issues, including substandard service levels and poor monitoring of consumer outcomes, including for customers in vulnerable circumstances:

• ‘We continue to see substandard service levels across insurance sectors and therefore encourage firms to ensure the customer support targets and SLAs [service level agreements] they aspire to are appropriate to ensure their customers are supported.’
• ‘[…] many firms need to make improvements in their monitoring to enable them to determine whether they are delivering good outcomes for retail customers, as required by the [Consumer] Duty.’ 
• ‘Some firms showed limited monitoring of outcomes for different groups of customers, including a lack of monitoring of outcomes between customers with characteristics of vulnerability and other customers.’

As with the 2025 claims-handling report, in the 2014 claims-handling review [6], the 2023 cost of living review [7] and the 2024 Consumer Duty outcomes review [8], the FCA did not publish definitive conclusions as to whether any of the reviewed firms had failed to comply with FCA rules. The FCA also failed to make clear what it was doing to hold other firms to account. The findings of the most recent claims-handling review suggests that this action has, to date, been insufficient. The persistence of these issues over the course of four separate reviews, spanning more than a decade, points to an ongoing failure of the FCA to fulfil its statutory duty to ensure an appropriate degree of consumer protection in the home and travel insurance markets, as well as potentially cultural issues undermining its regulation of the wider insurance industry. 

Yet in some other parts of insurance, particularly on the fair value of products, the FCA has been more willing to address issues with firms’ compliance and the resulting consumer harm. For example: 

• It agreed a pause in the sale of guaranteed asset protection products with many providers, which was followed by subsequent improvements in the value of these products, albeit this was a decade after the FCA first found similarly low levels of payouts as a share of premiums [9]. 
• Its 2024 thematic review of product oversight and governance found ‘Many firms were not fully meeting the requirements under PROD 4 and could not ensure and evidence that their products are delivering fair value’. In response the FCA said: ‘We are requiring firms to take remedial actions supported by attestations from senior management and using our skilled person review tool, where appropriate. Where we have more material concerns about product value, we are intervening including getting firms to withdraw products from the market. In the event we identify significant harm to customers, we will ensure that firms and their senior managers are held accountable for these failings and remediate the harm, including providing any customer redress necessary.’  

We are unclear why the FCA has not used these measures, including agreeing undertakings by firms, or requiring firms to take remedial action and provide redress, for the repeated issues it has found with firms’ claims-handling governance and practices, and the poor treatment of customers. 

 1.4 Why Which? is submitting this super-complaint

This persistent evidence of ongoing consumer harm in the home and travel insurance markets led us to campaign to address this, and to engage regularly with the FCA and other stakeholders on our concerns in these markets. Despite this engagement and the coming into force of the FCA Consumer Duty rules, we have not seen significant improvements for consumers in these markets.

Our engagement with the FCA following its 2025 claims-handling report has not made sufficiently clear to us what its plans are to fix the issues it has identified. The FCA could have specified actions for firms to undertake or taken enforcement action. While we appreciate the sensitivities around naming firms at early stages of enforcement investigations, the FCA did not need to name firms to announce that this was happening. Where necessary, the FCA could have launched further investigations, such as a call for input or a market study. None of this was set out by the FCA. 

Other issues we have identified in these markets were not considered at all. Wider legal obligations (such as those listed in section 1.7 below) were not mentioned, despite the FCA having the remit to enforce these in relevant markets. Which? remains of the view that the FCA’s response to its 2025 claims-handling review, and a series of previous regulatory reviews, has been insufficient. The FCA has missed or underestimated many important issues that we have persistently raised. Where it has identified issues, its response has not been commensurate with the scale and nature of harm in these markets. 

On the basis of our research and investigations, we are concerned that a significant number of insurance firms are not complying with relevant consumer and insurance laws and FCA rules, including the Consumer Duty. Allowing firms to behave in this way penalises firms that have done the right thing, by giving their competitors an unfair advantage. This will further erode firms’ incentives to adhere to regulation and consumer trust in insurance markets, preventing these markets from working effectively. 

Despite raising these concerns repeatedly with the FCA, we are not clear how the FCA is addressing them. In response to the recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request we submitted to the FCA in August 2025, the FCA refused to give overall numbers of open enforcement investigations either across the general insurance sector or specifically in relation to home and travel insurance. The FCA’s FOI response also made it clear that very few firms were under investigation, and that its 2025 claims-handling review concerned FCA rules only – not wider consumer law (See Annex C: The FCA’s response to Which?’s Freedom of Information request). We do not regard this approach as sufficient in the circumstances. 

Which? has therefore reached the view that the FCA is failing in relation to the home and travel insurance markets to meet its statutory consumer protection objective to secure ‘an appropriate degree of protection for consumers’. After careful consideration, Which? has decided to submit a formal super-complaint regarding certain features of the consumer home and travel insurance markets under Section 234C of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. 

While it is the FCA’s responsibility to ensure that the regulations and consumer law it is responsible for are adequately enforced in these markets, responsibility for ensuring these markets function does not sit with the regulator alone, but also with the government. As such, our recommendations reflect the fact that a wider range of solutions may be necessary. 

Which? also acknowledges that the FCA may be reluctant to use its consumer law enforcement powers as, unlike the Competition and Markets Authority [10], it does not have direct fining powers for the relevant legal breaches. Such fining powers could be used by the FCA, for example, for breach of unfair commercial practices prohibitions (including misleading actions or omissions in insurance selling) or unfair terms non-compliance in policies. For this reason, Which? believes consideration should be given to granting the FCA such powers (see Recommendation 3, section 5.3).

It also appears from our research and investigations, including our own legal analysis, that the existing consumer and insurance law frameworks may well not be effective or clear enough, for example:

• in deterring unfair commercial practices, as prohibited by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act), in relation to claims-handling, such as unreasonable consumer documentation requirements; or 
• in how claims are wrongly assessed or refused in breach of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA 2012) or the Insurance Act 2015.

Which? expects that a wider assessment of issues in the insurance industry will be needed alongside the FCA’s response to this super-complaint to fully address these systemic issues. 

1.5 The relevant markets

There are two relevant product markets for this super-complaint:

• The retail home insurance market which covers policies distributed to consumers in the UK, including contents-only, buildings-only and combined buildings and contents policies.
• The retail travel insurance market which covers policies distributed to consumers in the UK, including single-trip, European annual and worldwide annual policies.

Insurance markets are complex, with a wide range of policy types which can involve multiple stakeholders at various levels. This can make defining product markets a complicated exercise. The definitions above align with a consumer perspective. They also align with the pragmatic approach the FCA has taken in relation to insurance markets in its previous work. For example, in the FCA’s recent review of claims handling, it focuses on ‘home and travel products’ without going into additional detail. For the avoidance of doubt, however, we believe there are issues with the conduct of both manufacturers and distributors of insurance in these markets. 

Home insurance is the second most commonly-held general insurance product in the UK. In 2024, 32 million (60%) adults held a home insurance policy that included contents cover, and 29 million adults (53%) held a policy that included buildings cover. The number of people who benefit from these policies at a household level is likely to be considerably higher.

The home insurance market is also extremely large in terms of value. According to FCA data from 2023, gross written premiums across the three relevant types of home insurance policy were just under £6 billion. For combined buildings and contents home insurance, the most popular by some distance, average premiums were £340.

Travel insurance is a smaller market both in terms of customers and average premiums. Gross written premiums totalled £980 million in 2023, with average premiums ranging from £73 to £159 across the three main types of travel insurance. Nevertheless, millions of UK consumers purchase travel insurance every year. In 2024, 14.5m UK adults held an annual travel insurance policy, whilst 12.7m held a single-trip policy in the 12 months prior.

1.6 Features of the relevant markets significantly damaging the interests of consumers

This super-complaint to the FCA raises three features of the consumer home and travel insurance markets that are significantly damaging the interests of consumers:

1. Poor claims handling
2. Inappropriate sales processes
3. A lack of application and enforcement of FCA rules and other relevant law

1.6.1 Poor claims handling

The FCA’s recent findings in its 2025 claims-handling report have identified ‘many areas where improvements need to be made’ but where, in our view, it has failed to take appropriate action. These include:

• poor claims and supplier management, including oversight of outsourced claims-handling providers;
• ineffective communication with customers on expectations, progress and claims outcomes;
• failing to identify customers in vulnerable circumstances and support them appropriately; and
• insufficient claims governance, including the availability and use of management information.

In each case, Which? thinks that the FCA has outlined insufficient action, and is concerned that this will result in ongoing consumer harm. We point to an array of evidence that these problems exist at a greater scale across the industry than the FCA has grasped in its recent review, and to the fact that similar issues were also identified by the FCA in 2014 or in more recent related reviews, and yet little change has been made as a result. This leaves us with little confidence that the limited steps the FCA has publicly announced it is taking in response to the recent review will lead to the satisfactory resolution of these issues. 

The FCA has missed or overlooked many important issues altogether. This is, in part, because its 2025 claims-handling report did not include a significant piece of research with consumers or industry professionals. Instead it relied on data collected by providers which is acknowledged to be substandard in places. This appears to have limited the FCA’s visibility of wider issues across these markets. The overlooked issues where the FCA has identified some indicators of harm, but does not appear to have a plan to take action to deal with issues, are: 

• customers having to repeatedly provide information and evidence;
• comparatively low claims acceptance rates; and
• firms not addressing systemic issues identified from relevant Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) decisions.

Overall, these persistent problems show that many firms are not sufficiently focused on consumer outcomes, and that there are major issues with firms’ governance, processes and culture. 

Various FCA rules and wider legal obligations are applicable, including: 

• ICOBs 8.1.1.R obligations that claims must be handled promptly and fairly; 
• the Consumer Duty principles to secure good outcomes for consumer; and 
• the implied term under Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) that services must be provided with reasonable care and skill.

However, even if currently investigating these matters further, the FCA has also failed to properly consider the implications of more general relevant law such as that on unfair terms, unfair commercial practices and insurance legislation.

The FCA’s response is insufficient. Further action is needed urgently for the FCA to fulfil its obligations to ensure adequate consumer protection. 

1.6.2 Inappropriate sales processes

Unfair claims decisions and poor claims governance appear to be partially responsible for low claims acceptance rates in the home and travel insurance markets. However, it is also widely accepted among both the insurance industry [11] and the FCA [12] that poor consumer understanding of insurance products causes a significant number of claims rejections. 

FCA regulations require insurers to take action to enable consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing products and to ensure that a proposed insurance contract is consistent with the customer’s demands and needs. However, Which?’s research shows that consumers frequently misunderstand the coverage offered by insurance products. In testing a range of scenarios across both home and travel insurance, we found a significant minority of consumers expect to be covered for things typically excluded from home or travel insurance policies, like storm damage to fences or connecting flights. Consumers also commonly expect they will be covered for any event that is not ‘their fault’, and have little understanding of what would constitute wear and tear or negligence, which could impede their ability to successfully make a claim [13]. 

In these cases, policies may be applied in line with their terms by insurers, but consumers still experience both time and psychological harm when they are unable to make a claim for something they expected to be covered. 

Consumer misunderstanding in this market is partially a result of inherent characteristics of insurance products. Unlike most things consumers buy, they hope never to have to use an insurance policy. Many consumers will never make a claim, or do so only rarely, offering little opportunity to learn about products in the market through experience. Consumers also expect a degree of standardisation and the presence of minimum standards across the industry as a result of regulation. 

The common use of comparison tools to compare and purchase home and travel insurance policies limits the variation in policies visible to consumers at the point of choosing products. While the simplified view of products offered by a comparison tool facilitates consumer comparison, the limited number of elements of cover surfaced through a comparison interface further reinforces consumers’ perceptions that insurance products are largely similar. 

Driven by this perception that there is little to choose between products beyond price, consumers rationally limit the time they spend searching for insurance and the extent to which they actively engage in the detail of the product they are purchasing.  

The poor consumer understanding of insurance products which results from this process is challenging, but not inevitable. We find that prompts in the sales process, for example those used to flag the availability of add-on cover options, can improve consumer understanding of what is covered. 

However, at present, not enough is being done by either firms or the regulator to address poor customer understanding. Firms’ processes are often insufficient to assess the nature of a consumer’s demands and needs, and the extent to which coverage matches this. For example, to understand whether a potential travel insurance customer plans to take a connecting flight, and would expect this to be covered. Details of coverage are generally only available to consumers through detailed terms and conditions and in Insurance Policy Information Documents (IPIDs), both of which are largely unintelligible to consumers, and underused. 

The industry and FCA should take further action, drawing on behavioural science, to improve consumer understanding of insurance products and reduce the avoidable harm associated with rejected claims. This should include the FCA launching a market study which would enable it to better understand why home and travel insurance markets are not currently addressing these consumer understanding issues and the regulatory interventions required to remedy this. 

1.6.3 A lack of application and enforcement of FCA rules and other relevant law

In addition to the compliance issues uncovered by the FCA and Which?’s own previous findings, here we cite evidence from recent external legal analysis showing that leading providers continue to have policy terms and conditions that are not in line with FCA rules, or wider consumer and insurance law.

In summary, our legal analysis found:

• With the disclaimer that terms may not in fact always be applied strictly, various terms examined improperly deviate from regulatory and statutory standards offering key protections and rights for consumers.
• Some of the terms were, in practice, likely to operate harshly or unexpectedly against consumers’ interests.

We cite examples where:

• Policy terms and conditions deviate from statutory and regulatory requirements for the protection of consumers in the insurance market. 
• There is a lack of transparency and/or clarity as to terms and exclusions. 
• There are unfair terms under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Many of these points identified do not feature in the FCA’s 2025 claims-handling report, although there may be some overlap, for example in relation to policy terms on storms. 

More generally, more than two years on since the implementation of the Consumer Duty rules for new products, the FCA has repeatedly found potential issues with non-compliance with FCA rules by insurers, but in our view is not conducting sufficient enforcement activity as a result. This view is also supported by the FCA’s response to our recent Freedom of Information request, which suggested that only ‘low numbers’ of firms were being investigated in this sector and that the recent claims-handling review only focused on possible FCA rule breaches, not wider legal obligations (See Annex B: Expert legal review of home and travel insurance policies).

Which? is particularly concerned that:

• Many of the issues identified in the claims-handling report echo those identified by the FCA’s last such in-depth review focused on claims-handling in consumer general insurance published over a decade ago, with little evidence the FCA has taken sufficient action in the interim period to ensure consumer protections are rigorously applied. 
• Despite the evidence of issues leading to harm found in consecutive reviews, there is little evidence the FCA is addressing these through firm level interventions. There were just six enforcement investigations that remained open across the general insurance and protection sectors in October 2024 [14], and no enforcement investigations were opened in the year to October 2024 [15]. 
• The FCA’s Unfair Contract Terms Library shows that the FCA has agreed just one undertaking with an insurance firm to address unfair contract terms in the last six years. It has agreed on just three undertakings with insurance firms since September 2013.

Which? is concerned that if the FCA’s previous, current and future actions in relation to the issues raised in this super-complaint are concentrated on informal, supervisory or settled enforcement actions which aren’t publicised sufficiently or at all, then any deterrent effect will be minimal. We also know that firms are keen to understand more clearly what they should do to comply with the Consumer Duty. Clearer communication about actions taken would help to set precedent around the standards expected in these markets, supporting firms that  want to comply. 

1.7 Key relevant areas of law

The FCA has been clear that the Consumer Duty marked a ‘significant shift in our expectations of firms’. The FCA also said that the general insurance sector should already have been meeting the products and services outcome, and the price and value outcome, of the Consumer Duty, under the PROD requirements introduced following the FCA’s 2020 market study on general insurance [16]. 

Various other sections of the FCA Handbook are applicable, and in some cases will give rise to a private right of action in the courts by a consumer if they are breached. The Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) and DISP (dealing with disputes) rules are particularly relevant.

Other key relevant areas of law include:

• Unfair contract terms provisions in Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. These apply a test of fairness to contract terms used by traders in transactions with consumers, taking into account various factors. There is also a separate and distinct requirement that written terms of consumer contracts should be transparent, which primarily means intelligible to consumers. A term or notice that is unfair is not legally binding on consumers. 
• The supply of services provisions of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, including the implied term under Section 49 that services must be provided with reasonable care and skill, and under Section 52 that a service must be provided within a reasonable time. This right does not replace any stricter rules in other legislation or FCA rules, but may provide useful additional rights and remedies for consumers in individual cases.
• Unfair commercial practices prohibitions, as now updated in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). These include prohibiting the omission of material information that the average consumer needs to take a transactional decision.
• The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA 2012) which requires insurers to prove before denying claims that a consumer has failed to take reasonable care regarding representations they have made when taking out insurance.
• The Insurance Act 2015 (IA 2015), which requires that insurers cannot rely upon breaches of terms in an insurance policy to limit or refuse claims unless the loss relates to those terms, as well as providing for an implied term that insurers must pay agreed claims within a reasonable time.

1.8 Evidence

Since summer 2024 when Which? launched its public campaign calling on the FCA to End the Insurance Rip-off, which targets poor value and treatment, we have published four reports (see Annex A for executive summaries) and a series of investigations. The four reports cover:

• FOS decisions involving delay, distress and inconvenience caused by insurers. We examined the text of over 8,500 decisions related to motor, home, travel and pet insurance. In each case, we examined an ombudsman’s reasoning for why a complaint was upheld, looking in particular at cases where an ombudsman found that an insurer had caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience, or an unfair delay.
• Consumer harm in the insurance claims process. 24 in-depth interviews with people who had recently made a claim, and an online survey of 3,322 recent insurance claimants.
• Consumer confusion around general insurance. Detailed qualitative work with 24 participants, followed by a depth interview to explore their experiences and perceptions in greater detail. This was followed by an online poll with a nationally representative sample of 4,000 UK adults.
• Potentially unfair flood and storm definitions in home insurance policies. We examined 133 recent policy documents from 67 providers; conducted a review of expert, industry, regulatory and ombudsman guidance on defining flood and storm; and conducted a nationally representative survey of 2,103 UK adults to establish consumer expectations around what constitutes flood and storm.

We have found compelling evidence of potential non-compliance with FCA rules, insurance law and consumer law. Key evidence that concerns us includes: 

• Persistently low claims acceptance rates. The FCA’s data shows that, in 2023, less than two thirds (63%) of buildings insurance claims, three quarters (77%) of contents only claims, and seven in 10 (72%) buildings and contents combined claims were accepted. For travel insurance, around 8 in 10 (81%) claims were accepted [17]. This compares, for example, to motor insurance where 99% of claims were accepted. 
• High rates of reported problems in claims processes. Over half (54%) of all people making a home or travel insurance claim experienced at least one problem in their claim journey [18]. 
• Worse reported claims experiences for people in vulnerable circumstances.People surveyed who were in vulnerable circumstances due to the event that led to their home or travel insurance claim, which included dealing with fires in their home or serious medical injuries when on holiday, were significantly more likely to experience a problem with their claim (69% compared to 39% of people surveyed not severely impacted).
• Claims-handling practices leading to negative impacts on mental health for those in vulnerable circumstances. Half (51%) of consumers surveyed who were severely impacted by their incident said their insurer’s actions negatively impacted their mental health.
• Levels and rates of upheld FOS decisions citing distress and inconvenience or delay hitting a five year high in 2023.Our analysis found that FOS decisions cited distress and inconvenience caused to consumers 1,321 times in 2023, with this harm appearing in 64% of upheld complaints. This was the highest number and proportion of harm cited in upheld complaints since 2019.

This super-complaint also includes new analysis providing further evidence of issues in these markets: 

• New analysis conducted with Fairer Finance, exploring the possible factors leading to variation in claims acceptance rates between firms. It identified a handful of coverage areas, including connecting flights in travel insurance and storms coverage in home insurance, in which more restrictive policy wordings appeared to align with low claims acceptance rates. However, more interestingly, in many cases very similar or identical policy wordings were leading to vastly different claims acceptance rates. This suggests that the culture and behaviour of firms, particularly in claims handling, may be a significant cause of low claims acceptance rates. 
• Legal analysis of a sample of policies and product information documents, conducted by an expert external barrister on our behalf. This identified a significant number of terms which are arguably unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, not compliant with specific insurance legislation or in breach of FCA rules.

 2 Poor claims-handling

2.1 The ‘many areas where improvements need to be made’ identified by the FCA where proposed actions are insufficient

The FCA’s 2025 claims-handling review identified ‘many areas where improvements need to be made’. Many of these showed evidence of persistent failings identified in previous FCA reviews as well as more recent research by Which?. 

In each case, Which? thinks the minimal action taken by the FCA in response to the issues identified is inadequate, and will result in ongoing consumer harm. This is particularly the case where our evidence points to wider prevalence across the industry or where previous FCA reviews identified similar issues, including its last in-depth review of consumer general insurance claims-handling in 2014, which also focused on home and travel insurance.

2.1.1 Poor claims and supplier management, including oversight of outsourced claims-handling providers

Where firms are outsourcing or using a third-party provider, they are responsible and accountable for all the regulatory responsibilities applying to outsourcing and third-party arrangements (Section 9.40). This includes ensuring that the support provided by a third party meets the Consumer Duty standard, with firms having systems and controls in place to monitor this and provide assurance that it is meeting its regulatory obligations (Section 9.41).

The FCA’s Consumer Duty guidance specifically cites interactions with third parties as a potential source of detriment to consumers. It says firms should therefore consider the impact the use of third parties has on customer outcomes (Section 4.19), including poor hand-off processes and a lack of clarity for customers about how or where to access support (Section 9.10). The FCA also wrote to insurance firms prior to the introduction of the Consumer Duty to raise ‘working with other firms’ as one of the three key areas where firms should particularly focus their attention and ‘accelerate their work on this important aspect of implementation’.

All of the firms included in the FCA’s 2025 claims-handling review outsourced some part of their claims-handling. Across these firms, the FCA found that: 

‘Some insurers had limited control over their outsourced claims handling arrangements [...] Where there is limited oversight, we have concerns about firms’ ability to ensure good consumer outcomes that are expected under the Consumer Duty.’

These findings are similar to those of the FCA’s 2014 claims-handling review, in which it found numerous instances of incorrect instructions being sent to suppliers, suppliers missing appointments to visit consumers in their property, and consumer dissatisfaction with workmanship or replacement goods. Only a third of Chartered Institute of Insurance respondents agreed that third party household suppliers were proactively managed. The FCA also reached the following conclusion about outsourced claims-handling: 

‘At the moment it does not appear that insurers that delegate claims handling have the information, or the means to collect it, to show that consumer outcomes are being delivered which are comparable to those where claims are handled directly by the insurer.’

Our own research suggests little has changed over the last decade, and this is causing consumer harm. People surveyed who had made home or travel insurance claims which involved third parties – which can include other firms involved in claims beyond outsourced claims-handling providers – were significantly more likely to report problems (62%) than those without them (40%). These people were also significantly more likely to report having an overall negative insurance claim experience (26% compared to 16% amongst claims with no third parties). Often these problems were directly related to the third party’s involvement. Amongst claims involving third parties:

• 18% said there was poor communication between their insurer and third parties;
• 17% of consumers surveyed said it was not clear what their insurer’s and third parties’ roles were in their claim;
• 15% received conflicting information from their insurer and the third party; and
• 14% were not told why the third party was involved in their claim.

These issues can cause delays in resolving claims for consumers, and contribute to psychological harm, as in Karen’s case. 

Considering our own findings together with the FCA’s findings on outsourced claims in its 2025 claims-handling report, it seems that some firms may not be complying with their obligations to ensure that outsourced claims-handling providers are meeting regulatory requirements including the Consumer Duty. In our view, further investigation – and where required, enforcement – by the FCA is warranted.

2.1.2 Ineffective communication with customers on expectations, progress and claims outcomes

The FCA’s ICOBS rules (8.1.1R) include requirements for insurers to handle claims promptly and fairly, and provide appropriate information on its progress. The FCA acknowledges in its Consumer Duty guidance that ‘some claims may take longer to settle than others’, but it nonetheless makes clear that ‘firms should ensure they manage customers’ expectations throughout the claim journey by providing timely and appropriate communications.’ 

Despite these requirements, the FCA concluded in its 2025 claims-handling report that: ‘While many firms in the sample treated their customers correctly, we’ve found too many examples of customers not receiving the service they’re entitled to.’ Specifically, the FCA’s review found ‘issues relating to the ineffective management of customer expectations, particularly relating to timescales, and not making sure customers are kept updated on their claim’s progress.’ 

This followed the FCA’s 2014 claims-handling review where a significant share of consumer and industry respondents cited issues with customers being kept updated on their claims [19]. In its 2024 report on outcomes monitoring, the FCA subsequently said they ‘continue to see substandard service levels across insurance sectors’.

Unlike its 2014 claims-handling review which included research with consumers, as well as with industry professionals, the FCA did not conduct consumer research as part of its 2025 claims-handling report to understand the prevalence of these issues and the impact they are having on consumers. Instead, its recent work primarily focused on FCA data, firm’s internal data and case files, and reviews of firms’ processes. 

Our consumer research with consumers who had recent experience of making a home or travel insurance claim further found that more than half (54%) of customers experienced a problem in their claims process. Two in 10 (22%) people making a claim in these markets had to chase for information on the status of their claim. Three in 10 people making a claim said that their initial contact did not leave them feeling clearer or more certain of their situation (29%). This uncertainty creates ongoing anxiety, and can worsen perceptions of the whole claims process: half (49%) of consumers surveyed who did not have a good initial contact ended up rating their whole claims experience as poor [20]. 

These issues result in widespread frustration and consumers having to invest a lot of time and energy in managing their claim. This evidence suggests that some firms may not be complying with their obligations under ICOBS 8.1.1R. It is also potentially indicative of non-compliance with legal obligations such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement to provide services with reasonable care and skill.

When a claim decision finally is reached, our consumer research with people who had made a home or travel insurance claim found that insurers are not consistently ensuring that their customers understand the reasons why a claim is being denied or only settled in part. One in four people surveyed whose claim was either only partially accepted or rejected said they were not given a reason why (24%); many of this group left feeling the decision was unfair [21]. 

This can reduce someone’s ability to challenge the fairness of a decision, to complain and to enforce their rights. Importantly, the Consumer Duty’s retail customer outcome on consumer understanding requires firms to meet customers’ information needs and support their understanding.

Which? research suggests that on a host of issues, requirements are not always being met. But we remain unclear what the FCA’s plans are to address these issues, both among the firms involved in its 2025 claims-handling report and in the wider home and travel insurance markets.

While the FCA has identified issues with some firms, by assuming that most firms treated their customers entirely correctly, without undertaking any consumer research to properly evidence this, the FCA is overlooking the prevalence of issues and scale of harm. This is especially concerning given the concerns the FCA has raised about firms’ use of management information to understand consumer outcomes. These limitations constrain what the FCA can understand about these markets, and require the regulator to find other ways to investigate firms’ compliance. 

2.1.3 Failing to identify customers in vulnerable circumstances and support them appropriately

In some of the issues the FCA identified, it raised concerns about the potential impact on customers in vulnerable circumstances. It specifically cited concerns about some firms’ inappropriate use of cash settlements, which failed to consider customer vulnerability: 

‘Some firms lacked oversight and monitoring of cash settlements, failed to consider customer vulnerability, and promoted cash settlements without ensuring good customer outcomes [...] We were concerned that some firms may be choosing cash settlements primarily to contain costs without considering customers’ best interests.’

This could leave people significantly out of pocket, and add further stress managing complex repairs to their home. Which? is unclear why urgent sector-wide action has not been taken by the FCA on the inappropriate use of cash settlements to prevent this ongoing harm from arising. The behaviour that the FCA is concerned about would clearly be in breach of various FCA rules such as the obligation to act in good faith towards customers. 

Which? believes the FCA also missed many other systematic failings in firms meeting their obligations to customers in vulnerable circumstances. This is, in part, due to the FCA not conducting consumer research which is needed to better understand the challenges faced by consumers in different circumstances. We therefore believe that the FCA has not properly understood the significant harm being caused to consumers. 

Firms are required under the Consumer Duty to support customers in vulnerable circumstances, and ensure they experience outcomes at least as good as other customers. ICOBS rules also specifically make clear for insurers that the level of support needed for customers who have characteristics of vulnerability may be different from that for others, so they should take particular care to ensure they act to deliver good outcomes for those customers. Under the FCA’s vulnerability guidance, firms should also ensure that they have systems and processes that allow customer service staff to record and access information that will be required in the future to respond to vulnerable consumers’ needs.

Our consumer research has found that many firms’ claims-handling processes are disproportionately impacting people in vulnerable circumstances due to the impact of the event that led to their claim. People we surveyed who were severely impacted by the event leading to their home or travel insurance claim were significantly more likely to report problems (69% compared to 39% of people not severely impacted) [22]. This includes people who have suffered medical emergencies on holiday or a fire in their home. Insurers should not have issues identifying this vulnerability and they should clearly be providing additional support in such circumstances. 

Firms may argue that claims where customers were severely impacted by their incident are by their nature more likely to have problems because of their complexity. However, the FCA is explicit that ‘Firms should take additional care to ensure they meet the needs of consumers at the greatest risk of harm.’

While most consumers have a positive experience of the initial step of reporting their incident to their insurer, too often the chance to identify vulnerability and offer appropriate support is being missed. In particular, Which? research has identified that insurers are regularly failing to identify and respond appropriately to consumers experiencing low emotional resilience because of the incident which led to their claim. This is despite the FCA’s vulnerability guidance making clear that firms should understand what characteristics of vulnerability are likely to be present in their customer base, and take additional care where necessary. 

These issues are having a significant impact on people who are often already struggling with the event that led to their home or travel insurance claim. Half (51%) of consumers surveyed who were severely impacted by their incident said their insurer’s actions negatively impacted their mental health, compared to just 11% amongst those not severely impacted by their incident. And four in 10 (42%) consumers surveyed with pre-existing mental health problems felt their insurer’s actions negatively impacted their mental health [23].

One example of poor processes directly causing harm is whereby customers have to unnecessarily repeat traumatic details of events, causing emotional distress. A quarter (26%) of people severely impacted by the incident that led to their travel or home insurance claim said they experienced emotional distress having to repeat traumatic details, compared to just 3% amongst those not severely impacted by their incident [24]. This is clearly at odds with the FCA’s vulnerability guidance which says that ‘consumers should not have to repeat information’. Tara’s case illustrates the harm this can cause:

These findings show significant harm being caused to customers in vulnerable circumstances. Which? is particularly concerned by the impact that firms’ treatment of customers is having on their mental health. The FCA’s Consumer Duty expectation that firms should provide outcomes at least as good for customers in vulnerable circumstances is clearly not being met. Tackling the scale and severity of harm, and non-compliance, should be an urgent priority for the FCA but its current conclusions and plans are far from sufficient.

2.1.4 Insufficient claims governance, including the availability and use of management information

The FCA’s 2025 claims-handling report found that ‘firms were often less able to show how their governance arrangements were helping them oversee their claims handling arrangements effectively.’ The FCA saw evidence of this ‘resulting in poor customer outcomes’ and ‘ongoing customer harm’. This included examples where firms had identified a lack of customer understanding of the cover provided but not acted to address this.

The FCA’s report found that one cause of this was that some firms produced poor quality management information and failed to use it properly to assess customer outcomes, including for vulnerable customers. This followed a 2024 FCA report looking across 20 large insurance firms which found that ‘many firms’ needed to make improvements in their monitoring of consumer outcomes. 

These issues can have wide-ranging consequences for firms’ ability to meet their regulatory and legal obligations in a variety of areas, including claims-handling arrangements, product governance, sales processes and customer support – which the FCA expects firms to alter to address poor outcomes. 

On firms’ approaches to claims, the FCA’s 2025 claims-handling report found that over a quarter of firms reviewed lacked a documented oversight framework or policy to ensure consistency in their claims oversight [25]. Without these frameworks or policies, firms are much more likely to handle claims unfairly and to fail to spot poor customer outcomes. The FCA seemed to underestimate how much harm this may be causing. 

The FCA cited an example of good practice being: ‘We saw a small subset of firms encouraging claims handlers to look for ways to pay rather than reject a claim'. However there was no corresponding conclusion reached about the vast majority of firms that were not doing this. The FCA should have raised concerns about these other firms’ approaches to paying claims, with the clear implication being that most firms looked for reasons to reject claims. This is despite the expectation of FCA rules that claims must not be rejected unreasonably (ICOBS 8.1.1R), firms must act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of customers (ICOBS 2.5.-1R), and that firms must act to deliver good outcomes for consumers (PRIN 2.1.1R).  

While the FCA specifically raised concerns about low claims acceptance rates for storm claims, in its report it primarily proposed action with the industry on improving consumer understanding of policy terms. The FCA found weaknesses in firms’ storm definitions, with firms failing to clearly define what constitutes a ‘storm’ and the specific conditions for storm damage coverage. It said firms should ‘consider whether their policies are meeting customer needs and whether action is needed to improve consumer understanding of policy wording'. It specifically cited ‘the lack of clarity around wear and tear and storm damage’. This followed similar findings published by Which? earlier in 2025.

Despite the FCA finding that around half (49%) of storm claims were rejected outright and five firms accepted less than 30% of claims, it concluded that ‘in most cases, claims that were rejected or not continued by the customer had valid reasons for not being successful under the policy terms'. However, as this review only included a small number of firms, the observation that only ‘most’ claims for storm damage were rejected for valid reasons is a major concern. If, as the FCA’s comment suggests, there are cases where firms have unreasonably rejected a claim, those firms will have fallen foul of the FCA’s rules including ICOBS 8.1.1R. 

We sought further details of what the FCA was doing to address issues with claims-handling via a Freedom of Information request in August 2025. In response, the FCA said that on storm damage claims there were ‘widespread issues around consumer understanding and specific issues around claims handling in a smaller number of firms’. It also said ‘we believe these issues are best addressed through a combination of wider industry recommendations and actions allied to individual firm feedback and actions' [26]. However, we are currently uncertain as to what action the FCA will take to address unfair storm claim decisions, both in those firms where specific issues were identified in the recent review, and across the industry more widely. 

For other types of claims, the FCA’s claims-handling report said that generally where it has found poor practices affecting customer outcomes, firms will be required to take corrective action. However, commitments to specific actions were lacking. This is despite the FCA’s findings on claims governance which suggests that issues with claims handling could be much more widespread than claims for storm damage that the FCA has chosen to focus on, and be due to broader issues with firms’ practices, and how firms monitor and review claims outcomes. 

2.2 The issues the FCA has overlooked

In addition to the issues described above, where the FCA has identified problems but failed to take adequate action to protect consumers from harm across the home and travel insurance markets, Which? has also identified a number of issues. In some cases, the FCA has either acknowledged a problem amongst firms reviewed, but failed to identify any planned actions as a result, and in others, it seemingly overlooked evidence of problems.

2.2.1 Repeated requests for information and evidence

An issue identified in our consumer research, but not by the FCA in its July 2025 claims-handling report, is consumers experiencing repetitive or sequential requests for similar information and evidence when making a claim. This can be hugely frustrating for consumers and it can erode their trust and confidence in their insurer and its agents’ abilities to properly carry out a task. One in four (25%) people making a home or travel insurance claim had to repeat information or repeatedly share documentation and evidence multiple times during their claims process. People making a home or travel insurance claim also reported evidence requests coming in dribs and drabs, resulting in them spending more time gathering this information. 20% of those surveyed who were asked to submit evidence were asked to provide additional evidence following their initial submission. One in four (27%) people said that going through their claim took up a lot of their time and effort and a third (34%) felt their insurer’s actions negatively impacted their time available to do other things [27].

These findings echoed similar results from the FCA’s research in 2014, where both consumers and insurance professionals identified the need to reduce the number of times that consumers were required to repeat themselves while making a claim. 

Sam’s case demonstrates the emotional harm this poor claims-handling practice can cause. One in three (34%) consumers with home or travel insurance claims surveyed who had to repeatedly share documentation and evidence said they experienced emotional distress having to repeat traumatic details surrounding their claims. 

Diane experienced similar delays in processing her claim, which led to a deterioration in her physical health.

Our research also identified that some evidence requests were unreasonable, intrusive or disproportionate, further delaying claims processing. Collecting evidence can often be very time consuming for people, requiring a trip to the doctors, or digging through years’ worth of receipts, for example. Lydia’s case study illustrates the issues. 

The methods by which firms ask consumers to submit evidence to support claims can also cause delays to processing, particularly where firms expect consumers to do this through an online portal and fail to make adjustments for customers who are not comfortable using the internet.

Our research suggests that while not common, this is not an isolated occurrence. 13% of consumers with home or travel insurance claims surveyed who had to submit evidence said they had difficulties sending it (eg navigating an online portal). These experiences often lead to further stress for people making a claim. Three in four (74%) of those surveyed who experienced a problem at the evidence stage said they felt their stress levels increased because of these difficulties.

Which? is concerned that the lack of consumer research in the FCA’s claims-handling review means that it has missed these issues and failed to appreciate the prevalence and scale of harm being caused to consumers.

2.2.2 Comparatively low claims acceptance rates

While the FCA’s 2025 claims-handling report noted that average claims acceptance rates were 73% for home insurance and 79% for travel insurance between 2022 and 2024, it did not reach any conclusion on whether it thought this was a problem. It did not cite claims acceptance rates for any individual firms, named or anonymised, in the report, even though it publishes data by firm on a named basis in its general insurance value measures. These were striking omissions from its report. 

Which?’s view is clear: average claims acceptance rates for home and travel insurance are too low. They have been significantly and persistently lower than for other insurance markets. The FCA’s data shows that less than two thirds (63%) of buildings insurance claims, around three quarters (77%) of contents only claims, and around seven in 10 (72%) buildings and contents combined claims were accepted in 2023. Around eight in 10 travel insurance claims were accepted, at 79% for annual worldwide cover, 82% for annual European cover, and 80% for single-trip cover. This compares to a claim acceptance rate of 99% for motor insurance claims and 95% for lifetime pet insurance claims. 

This is not a one-off. Figure 1 shows that claims acceptance rates for home and travel products were similarly low in 2021 and 2022. In some cases, rates have fallen further despite the FCA warning firms to ensure that their products offer fair value.

Figure 1: Acceptance rates for home and travel insurance are significantly and persistently lower than for motor and pet insurance

The FCA’s lack of concern about firms’ acceptance rates for home and travel insurance

To meet the overarching principle of the Consumer Duty, firms should be acting to deliver good outcomes for consumers. FCA guidance specifically says firms should be identifying where good outcomes are not being achieved. Persistently low claims acceptance rates for home and travel insurance claims is very clearly a poor outcome for customers. Within that, firms should be aware that there are certain types of claims where acceptance rates are lower than others for their customers. This suggests that firms are not meeting requirements to address poor outcomes.

Despite these requirements, the FCA’s 2025 claims-handling report did not conclude whether any specific firms’ acceptance rates were too low. Across the home and travel insurance markets, Which? believes many firms’ claims acceptance rates are worryingly low. Across all firms in the FCA’s general insurance value measures, 18 firms accepted fewer than three quarters of combined home insurance claims in 2023, whilst one major provider accepted just 30-35% of buildings claims. In travel insurance, only one provider of single-trip travel insurance accepted over 90% of claims.

While initially described as a ‘sunshine’ remedy, publishing claims outcome data does not appear to have had the ameliorating effect on firm practice the FCA may have hoped for. 

The frequency of claims rejections appears to be playing a fundamental role in undermining trust in the industry. Rejected claims leave people facing unexpected costs, and undermine their belief that insurance will pay out when they need it to.

Some industry voices argue there are inconsistencies in the way claims outcomes are recorded across firms which make this data unreliable, and we recognise there may be issues specific to product types that mean acceptance rates are unlikely to align across products. However, the cross-industry trends here are of sufficiently large magnitude to merit further investigation. Furthermore, the FCA first began piloting published claims acceptance data from the 2015-16 period. It conducted a review in 2018 which ‘found it had a positive impact’, and it refined its approach in 2020. If there were data issues, the FCA should have taken prompt action to improve them to allow proper monitoring of consumer outcomes.

Unfair claims decisions as a driver of low claims acceptance rates

From the FCA’s general insurance value measures data it is clear there are large variations in claims acceptance rates between firms, but currently, these differences remain unexplained. As we note above, some argue that inconsistencies in the data make it unreliable, however Which? disagrees that such large variations can be explained away by this. There is a 55 percentage point difference between the highest and lowest acceptance rates for buildings insurance between firms; it seems highly unlikely that this can be solely attributed to issues in the data.

We also considered whether restrictive policy wordings could be a key factor that would explain the variation, and commissioned research by Fairer Finance to explore this. It found a handful of instances where more restrictive policy wording appeared to align with low acceptance rates, such as storms in home insurance and connecting flights in travel insurance. However, these instances were uncommon.

The Fairer Finance research identified that many policy wordings were very similar or identical in some parts, yet the firms had reported vastly different claims acceptance rates. This suggests that, on the whole, it is not the specific policy wordings that are leading to low acceptance rates, but the claims-handling governance and behaviour of specific firms. This would seem to us to increase the risk of low claims acceptance rates.

This is consistent with the FCA’s worrying findings about issues with firms’ claims-handling governance and practices. The FCA also identified that over a quarter of firms reviewed lacked a documented oversight framework or policy to ensure consistency in their claims oversight. Without these frameworks or policies, there are clear risks that firms handle claims unfairly and are not identifying this. This finding also suggests that problems leading to inappropriate claims rejection are much wider than those relating specifically to storms, which the FCA chose to focus on. 

Which? concludes that issues with firms’ governance and behaviour, identified by the FCA and corroborated by our research with Fairer Finance, are at least partially driving low claims acceptance rates across the home and travel insurance markets, while acknowledging that there are also issues around consumer understanding leading to inappropriate claims (see Section 3 of this report). Such outcomes indicate a systemic failure within the industry to meet the fundamental principle of fair claims handling and to uphold the Consumer Duty by ensuring customers understand their coverage. 

The financial and emotional harm inflicted upon consumers by these unfair and incorrect rejections is undeniable. By not examining claims acceptance rates in detail, particularly among firms where rates are particularly low, the FCA has overlooked the root causes of consumer detriment. By failing to set out a clear strategy for dealing with these issues across the market, the FCA is continuing to tolerate unacceptably low claims acceptance rates, and failing to fulfil its duties towards consumers. 

2.2.3 Firms not addressing systemic issues identified from relevant Financial Ombudsman Service decisions

When handling complaints, the FCA’s complaint-handling rules require firms to consider ‘appropriate analysis of decisions by the Financial Ombudsman Service concerning similar complaints received by the respondent (procedures for which are described in DISP 1.3.2A G)'.

While the FCA’s 2025 claims-handling report cited FCA data on complaints and firms’ internal complaint uphold rates, it made no mention of FOS decisions or data, which should form an essential part of both the FCA’s supervision of the sector and firms’ monitoring to identify potential failings and to address them. 

We previously analysed the text of 8,500 FOS decisions on motor, home, travel and pet insurance using a large language model. This showed high rates of FOS decisions involving unnecessary delays, and causing undue distress and inconvenience. 

High levels of distress and inconvenience spanned widely-held products and included many large providers. Levels of distress were also persistently high in areas where we would expect insurers to exercise particular care. This includes medical issues in travel insurance and cases where an insurer needed to make repairs to buildings. 

Unfairly delayed claims are also a widespread issue in the sector, particularly affecting buildings insurance where this can mean people are living in damaged homes or alternative accommodation for extended periods. These decisions show firms not acting in a fair and reasonable manner, and not complying with FCA rules and other legal obligations to consumers. 

Similarly, high uphold rates for complaints related to denied claims suggest the presence of systemic issues either in claims handling practices or claims decisions. In 2024, across home and travel insurance, 42% of complaints about a declined claim were upheld in favour of the consumer by the FOS [28]. These complaints could have been upheld for a variety of reasons - because the decision was unfair, or because of the way the insurer handled the claim. In either case, this relatively high uphold rate is worthy of further investigation, which the FCA has failed to undertake. 

The FCA’s claims-handling report should have identified issues such as these within FOS decisions and investigated further. This should have included seeking evidence from firms that have taken steps based on learning identified from past FOS decisions against them to prevent similar harms from arising.

3 Inappropriate sales processes

While the evidence presented in Section 2 suggests that unfair claims decisions are partially to blame for low claims acceptance rates in the travel and home insurance markets, Which? also believes that poor consumer understanding of the products they are purchasing is a significant cause. Both firms and the FCA are well aware of these issues, yet have failed to take action to improve consumer understanding of insurance products during the sales process. In this, both firms and the regulator are tolerating a situation where many consumers have their claims unexpectedly rejected after an event, and failing to prevent foreseeable consumer harm. 

3.1 Requirements for demands and needs assessments and to support consumer understanding

Distributors of insurance products, which can include manufacturers selling directly to consumers, face requirements under ICOBS to ensure that a proposed insurance contract is consistent with the customer’s demands and needs. The Consumer Duty also requires that firms support customers to understand the products and ‘equip retail customers to make decisions that are effective, timely and properly informed’. Firms are also expected to test communications and regularly monitor them to ensure they are effectively supporting good outcomes for customers, and to take corrective action where issues are identified. FCA rules, as well as consumer law protections [30], require that insurance products are designed and sold in a way that is fair, transparent and not misleading.

Despite these requirements, Which?'s research has identified widespread limitations in consumer understanding of home and travel insurance cover. In both qualitative and quantitative testing, we found significant consumer confusion about what is commonly covered by home and travel insurance policies, and what is routinely excluded. This suggests firms are not taking appropriate action to inform consumers of the nature and limitations of the products they are buying during the sales process. 

3.2 Consumer confusion about the nature and extent of insurance coverage is widespread

Our research has identified three common misconceptions about the nature of insurance: 

1. When consumers take out cover for a defined item or event, they have little understanding of any limitations of this cover.
2. When a situation is due to events beyond a consumer’s control, ie ‘not my fault’, they often assume they will be covered. In our survey, three in ten (31%) participants thought their insurance would cover them for anything that wasn’t their fault and another quarter (25%) said they didn’t know. Consumers often see accidental damage as being optional cover for things that are their fault (like damage they or their children have caused), whilst assuming that the core product will cover them for everything else that’s beyond their control. 
3. Whilst consumers understand that negligence and wear and tear are factors that can limit insurance cover, there is sometimes little understanding of what might constitute negligence or wear and tear. Three in ten (29%) participants in our survey thought that if they have cover for possessions, they are protected against any event involving those possessions with little appreciation for any limitations on this. In reality, moral hazard means insurance will not usually cover people for things they could have taken action to prevent, for example by undertaking regular home maintenance or taking care to protect their property from theft. We found, however, that people struggled to define what might count as their own ‘negligence’ or ‘wear and tear’, and would not be covered on this basis, leading to potential misunderstanding and disappointment when people come to make a claim.

These consumer expectations stand in stark contrast to the reality that insurance only covers specified ‘insurable events’. In practice, this can lead to widespread misunderstanding of the specific coverage that products offer. In Which?'s qualitative research, all participants incorrectly judged the cover associated with their chosen insurance policy in at least one scenario. Across all the qualitative testing we conducted, just under half of the time (40 out of 85 scenarios) participants incorrectly identified whether they were covered or not.

These findings were replicated in quantitative testing. A significant minority of consumers across many scenarios expected they would be covered for things typically excluded from insurance policies, like storm damage to fences (39%) or wet rot in floorboards (34%). Additionally, a substantial proportion, unusually for survey research, admitted they didn’t know. In each of these cases, our research suggested that more than half of people holding these policies may be in a position where they would make a claim that would subsequently be rejected, based on a lack of understanding of the product [31]. 

This is further validated by a number of FOS decisions where consumers have complained about insurers not accepting claims in these areas, as illustrated in the case studies below. 

In each of these cases, although the policy was applied in line with its terms, the policyholders’ misunderstanding of their cover means they experienced time and psychological harm. This included the time taken to complain to their insurer and escalate to the FOS, and the stress and uncertainty associated with this process. In some cases, there were also lengthy delays to undertaking repairs due to a lack of clarity about where responsibility lay. While the issue may have been clear cut to the insurer in each case, it wasn’t to their customers. Consumer misunderstandings like these can therefore cause significant harm. 

We found a similarly mixed understanding of typical coverage in the travel insurance market, particularly around coverage for connecting flights, a common cause of complaints, and around coverage for luggage. Half (51%) of travel insurance buyers thought they would be covered if a delay on their first flight meant missing a connecting flight with a different airline. Some policies do cover this, so this is an insurable risk. However, we found several policies that will not cover a connecting flight if the connecting flight does not leave from the UK.

Misunderstandings around cover for flight delays involving connecting flights are a common cause of complaints, as in the FOS case decisions below. In these cases, while the decisions may have been in line with policy terms, the people involved still suffered stress and uncertainty.

These issues with cover for connecting flights were also identified as part of our new research with Fairer Finance. This found that firms with high acceptance rates set out clearly what was covered or excluded, whereas those with low acceptance rates either referenced connecting flights vaguely in other sections, or avoided mentioning them at all. This suggests that consumer confusion around coverage in this area could be a causal factor in variation in claims acceptance rates.

3.3 Underlying behaviours and beliefs drive poor consumer understanding

Consumer misunderstanding in these markets is not surprising. Buying insurance is a challenging task for consumers due to asymmetric information, where firms possess more knowledge about their products and customers than consumers do. Insurance is unusual in being a product that consumers hope to never have to use. Furthermore, seeking to fully understand their coverage needs would require consumers to think through negative scenarios, something we are psychologically averse to. As one participant in our research described: 

Consumers also make insurance claims relatively infrequently, and so lack the opportunity to learn about what they need from a product or what represents good value through experience.

Without this opportunity to learn, consumers’ starting assumption is usually that insurance products are largely standardised, with 64% of consumers agreeing with the statement 'most insurance products available on the market offer similar levels of protection'. Two factors seem to reinforce this view: a belief that regulation drives standardisation, and a lack of visible variation through comparison tools.

3.4 Consumers assume that insurance is standardised and protected by regulation

The majority of consumers in our research thought that most insurance products offer similar levels of protection and, whilst they may not know the FCA by name, many assume that someone is regulating these products to ensure that they are fit for purpose:

The majority of consumers in our survey (65%) believed that 'insurance products must meet a minimum level of cover as required by regulation'. Just 6% thought this statement was false. Similarly, 57% thought it was true that 'regulators of the insurance market will make sure products are fit for purpose', whilst just one in ten thought this was false. This suggests that at a population level, people have a strong expectation that insurers will be held to account by regulators and there are minimum standards in place.

Figure 2: Most consumers think that regulations are already in place to ensure insurance products are fit for purpose and provide a minimum level of cover

3.5 Sales processes reinforce the view that product variation is limited

Comparison tools are now the main channel for purchasing insurance. Across all general insurance or protection policyholders in the FCA’s 2024 Financial Lives Survey, 77% said they had used a comparison tool to compare or buy insurance – an increase of 7 percentage points compared to 2022. 

Comparison tools enable consumers to easily compare a wide range of policies by summarising them and ranking them, but in doing so they necessarily overlook the many detailed ways in which policies can vary. The UK’s largest comparison tools typically only surface a handful of variables to consumers – the price of the policy, levels of excesses, sometimes the headline level of coverage (eg the pound value of buildings, contents or medical cover), and whether a handful of specific elements are included or available as add-ons. A consumer browsing these pages may make the assumption that coverage only varies among these dimensions. 

Even where more information is provided on the first page of results, for example whether coverage is new for old, includes alternative accommodation or freezer contents, these tend not to be elements that vary significantly between policies, potentially further reinforcing the perception that the only real differences between policies are price and coverage amounts. 

While some comparison tools surface further details about policies in a list-style format when a customer clicks through, these are often provided in a way that makes it difficult for a consumer to compare the details of policies. When many consumers rely on these tools to identify insurance policies, it is perhaps not surprising that they conclude policies must be very similar. 

There is also an absence of metrics providing insight into the relative quality of providers such as data related to acceptance rates or claims-handling satisfaction. Consumers are unlikely to go searching for this information, or even be aware that it is available, given that it is only published by the FCA in spreadsheet format. This means that when a consumer is making a decision, there is very little information available about how the odds of successfully making a claim can vary substantially between providers. 

In these circumstances, where consumers believe there is limited variation in products, it is rational for them to minimise the time they invest in choosing a product. Given their limited understanding of and engagement with insurance, and perception of a lack of variety, consumers look for shortcuts to help simplify the choice. This includes leaning heavily on comparison tools and heuristics like price and brand, and not engaging with detailed policy documents. 

3.6 Opportunities to address these misunderstandings are being missed 

The industry and FCA should not be accepting this level of consumer confusion as inevitable, particularly when it is clearly leading to consumer harm, and existing regulation specifically puts duties on insurers to take action to prevent this throughout the supply chain. The consumer behaviours and beliefs described above pose a challenge to efforts to improve consumer understanding of insurance products. However, strategies informed by behavioural science should offer opportunities to improve consumer understanding and meet regulatory expectations. 

Our research identified that prompts and cues embedded in the sales process are already improving consumer understanding of cover limitations in some areas – for example, where elements of coverage are clearly sold as add-ons, prompting consumers to acknowledge the limitations of core coverage. This indicates that people are able to absorb information through the insurance sales process when it is provided in a way that is salient to them. There are clear opportunities here to address consumer harm, which neither the industry nor the FCA have taken proactive action to address. 

Specifically, the current implementation of ICOBS 5.2 leaves much to be desired. There does not seem to be sufficient effort made by firms through application and sales process to identify potential consumer needs or demands which products would not meet, for example coverage for fences or connecting flights. Even where firms are not willing or able to offer this cover, asking questions to identify the customer’s specific needs would provide an opportunity to inform them about the limitations of cover at the point of sale, reducing the potential for harm later. 

The FCA’s Consumer Duty guidance is clear that consumers are expected to take responsibility for their decisions. However, at present, full details of the policy are typically provided only through detailed terms and conditions documents, which are largely incomprehensible to consumers.

Improvements may have been expected following the introduction of the Consumer Duty, which explicitly asks firms to take steps to ensure those with poorer literacy do not receive worse outcomes, and to ensure that they communicate to all consumers in a way that they are likely to understand and which allows them to make informed decisions. However, Fairer Finance analysis finds that readability scores for terms and conditions and policy documents have not generally improved, and scores in home insurance marginally worsened between 2023 and 2024.

Shortened Insurance Product Information Documents (IPIDs) are intended as a solution to this challenge. However, FCA data shows that, across insurance product categories, at most around half of people remember receiving this summary, suggesting engagement with even these simplified documents is low. Which? research echoed this, finding that consumers were more likely to engage with an IPID than the full policy wording, but that engagement with these summary documents was still low. 

These solutions are clearly not sufficient to address the harms resulting from widespread consumer confusion about insurance products. To ensure firms can fully comply with requirements under ICOBS and the Consumer Duty, action is required to identify innovative changes to the sales process itself to improve customer understanding and avoid harm downstream. This may include adding ‘positive friction’ to the sales process, as suggested by the FCA for complex and high-risk products in its non-Handbook Guidance on the Consumer Duty.

4 A lack of application and enforcement of FCA rules and other relevant law

As highlighted in the preceding chapters, Which? feels there are multiple areas where there are potential issues with firms’ compliance with FCA rules and applicable legal obligations – but as far as we can see, the FCA is not taking effective action to enforce these issues. 

More than two years on since the implementation of the Consumer Duty rules for new products, the FCA has repeatedly found potential issues with non-compliance with FCA rules by insurers. This non-compliance flies in the face of the specific warnings and guidance given to CEOs by the FCA in its public letter on retail insurance in September 2023. 

The FCA’s 2025 claims-handling report was no different. If the sample of firms in this report was expected to be indicative of the wider market, this suggests potential widespread non-compliance across the home and travel insurance markets. However, the FCA has not made clear what it is doing to investigate and take enforcement action against firms in the wider home and travel insurance markets not complying with its rules or the law more generally [32]. 

The FCA found that many firms were reactive rather than using their management information to proactively address issues, as required by FCA rules. This aligns with the high FOS uphold rate for insurance claims, as firms are all too often waiting for consumers to complain before taking corrective action. By tolerating this, the FCA is expecting consumers to advocate for themselves, not protecting them, and thus failing in its statutory duty to provide an appropriate degree of consumer protection in the home and travel insurance markets. 

In addition to the compliance issues uncovered in the FCA’s and our own previous findings, in August 2025 Which? commissioned a legal analysis which revealed further issues. 

 4.1 Which?'s legal analysis

Which? commissioned an expert external barrister to review terms and conditions and other key material, such as Insurance Product Information Documents (‘IPIDs’), of a sample of well known underwriters and brands of home and travel insurance. The analysis found many examples of non-compliance with FCA rules, as well as failures to meet statutory consumer protection standards for lack of transparency and other reasons, and likely breaches of specific insurance legislation [33]. 

The findings of the legal analysis reinforce our preliminary conclusions gained from other Which? research and investigations in the past few years, in the course of which we examined many other policy documents, case study examples and trends. 

Which? chose its sample of insurers for legal analysis based on a number of key factors, including: significant market share, average or lower-than-average claim acceptance rates, and a large number of reported problems with complaints and claims-handling. Five home insurance and four travel insurance providers were assessed, on the basis of recently available versions of policy documents and IPIDs, together with FOS decisions involving those providers, policy schedule examples, renewal and general business terms. Further details (on an anonymised basis) are given in Annex B, but in summary, the findings of the legal analysis were that:

• With the disclaimer that terms may not in fact always be applied strictly, various terms examined improperly deviate from regulatory and statutory protections for consumers.
• Some of the terms were, in practice, likely to operate harshly or unexpectedly against consumers’ interests.

Within this, there were three main themes which appeared repeatedly from the documentation reviewed, illustrated below with examples:

4.1.1 Deviation from statutory and regulatory consumer protection in the consumer insurance market

This was especially the case with regards claims-handling rules, Insurance Act 2015 restrictions, disclosure requirements under CIDRA 2012, and cancellation rights.

Example: Claims-handling rules

Terms which permit the provider to decide whether to give a cash settlement on a claim as opposed to arranging for the repair or replacement of damaged or lost goods. In particular, the terms in several of the policies appear to give the provider an unfettered discretion to offer a cash settlement. They do not set out any factors which may be used to make a determination one way or the other, nor do they offer the consumer any right of challenge to such a decision. Cash settlements by insurers can often lead to poor outcomes for the insured party. As noted in the 2025 FCA claims-handling report, the use of cash settlements 'may not result in good customer outcomes in complex and higher value claims' and 'is of particular concern where the customer may be vulnerable'. It may result in the consumer receiving a pay-out from their claim which is insufficient to cover their loss since cash settlements can be set according to 'discounted rates from a firm’s suppliers and contractors that will not be available to customers'. In those circumstances, a provider’s apparently unfettered right to offer a cash settlement risks unfairness in the claims-handling process. It is therefore surprising that the FCA report did not specifically highlight the drafting of terms on cash settlement being at the sole discretion of the insurer. 

Example: Insurance Act 2015 (‘IA’) restrictions

Terms which suggest, contrary to Section 11 IA, that a failure to comply with a particular requirement entitles the insurer to refuse all claims, whether or not related to the failure. Perhaps the most egregious example is one of the travel policy documents. It seeks to permit the provider to refuse a claim on the basis of non-disclosure of a pre-existing medical condition 'even if a claim is not related to' such non-disclosure. Thus, a consumer’s failure to disclose high blood pressure could be used to refuse a claim for a stolen laptop. There are also other more subtle examples. For example, one home policy implicitly permits the provider to reduce the amount payable on a claim if the insured buildings were not 'in a good state of repair' whether or not that was relevant to the claim.

Example: Disclosure requirements under CIDRA 2012

CIDRA 2012 puts an obligation on consumers 'to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer'. Schedule 1 of CIDRA 2012 sets out the remedies available to an insurer where a consumer fails in his or her duty of 'reasonable care'. However, these remedies are available to an insurer only in respect of a so-called 'qualifying misrepresentation' being one where 'without the misrepresentation, the insurer would not have entered into the contract (or agreed to the variation) at all, or would have done so only on different terms'. In turn, a 'qualifying misrepresentation' can be either 'deliberate or reckless' or 'careless' [34]. However, some of the policies analysed seek to give the provider remedies beyond those respectively allocated to 'deliberate or reckless' and 'careless' misrepresentations. For example, one home policy reserves a right to 'void the policy' if the consumer has provided 'any inaccurate information'. In fact, Schedule 1 to CIDRA 2012 would only justify such a step where the misrepresentation in question is a 'deliberate or reckless' 'qualifying' one.

Example: Cancellation rights

A consumer 'has a right to cancel, without penalty and without giving any reason' within 14 days of any general contract of insurance (ICOBS 7.1.1R). A consumer is deemed to have exercised his/her right if written notice of cancellation 'is dispatched before the deadline expires'. So, if the notice is sent on day 13 but does not reach the firm until day 15, the right will still have been validly exercised in the 14-day period. In some policies, the 14-day cancellation period is wrongly applied by reference to the date on which the notice of cancellation is received by the provider. As a result, contrary to ICOBS, the provider may suggest that the consumer has not exercised his/her cancellation rights within time. With some of the policies, where the consumer is not entitled to the refund of any premium outside the 14 days, that misapplication would have a significant adverse financial impact.

4.1.2 Lack of transparency and/or clarity as to terms and exclusions

Terms with these issues may breach ICOBS and the Consumer Duty, as well as Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for lack of transparency, and unfair commercial practices rules as to invitations to purchase and material omissions.

Example: Lack of transparency

One travel policy included significant health-related exclusions, which appear only in the middle of the policy documents. Moreover, they were not clearly explained in the IPID which stated only in very general terms that 'We are unable to cover claims relating to existing medical conditions'. In our view, that statement is likely to be inadequate to communicate the true breadth of the exclusions and is apt to mislead as to material features of the policy.

4.1.3 Unfair terms under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

For example those attempting to deviate from mandatory obligations to the detriment of consumers, unreasonably trying to exclude claims, or specifying unacceptable levels of evidence needed from consumers.

Example: Unfair terms

Any term in a consumer contract is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer'. In some of the policies, the need for original receipts, proof of ownership and proof of usage for items covered on travel insurance imposes a significant burden on consumers and third-parties. By contrast, a lack of appropriate evidence would be an easy discretionary basis for a provider to reject a claim. In our view, there are good arguments that such requirements therefore create a 'significant imbalance… to the detriment of the consumer'. As to good faith, while it is obviously necessary for consumers to prove the legitimacy of any claim, it would be appropriate for providers to agree to a corresponding commitment to take a reasonable approach to such evidence.

4.1.4 Implications for the FCA

Many of these points identified do not feature in the recent FCA claims-handling review, although there may be some overlap. Which? would be happy to discuss its legal analysis in more detail with the FCA, to assist with any potential enforcement action in response to this super-complaint, and subject to the usual confidentiality requirements [35]. 

When the legal analysis relating to some firms’ policy terms is combined with the other problematic aspects identified in this super-complaint, the outlook for consumers is not encouraging. If firms have an approach of looking for ways to reject claims, and their policies are drafted in a way which facilitates this (for example, where the policy allows the firm to reject a claim if there has been a failure to declare a medical condition even if the claim is not related), then it is hard not to conclude that the relationship is set up for the convenience of the insurer, and not to ensure good outcomes for consumers. It can also be argued that if firms contract with policy terms which give them the scope to act in a way which does not comply with FCA rules or consumer law (even if they would argue that in practice the terms are applied in a compliant way), this is not acting in good faith.

4.2 Upholding the law

The FCA is supposed to help level the playing field so that competition works more effectively in the interest of consumers. Its ineffective approach to enforcement is doing the opposite. There were just six FCA enforcement investigations – two into firms and four into individuals – that remained open in the general insurance and protection sector at the end of March 2024 [36], and there were no enforcement investigations that commenced in the general insurance and protection sector in the year to March 2024 [37]. This seems surprisingly low to Which? given the extent of the evidence it has examined and set out above as to likely non-compliance with FCA rules in just the home and travel insurance markets. Many of the issues identified in the claims-handling report echo those identified by the last such in-depth review focused on claims-handling in consumer general insurance published a decade ago, suggesting this is not a recent neglect on the part of the FCA, but rather a long-standing failure to operate effectively. 

The FCA therefore needs to do more to enforce existing ICOBS requirements and statutory consumer protection standards, as well as the consumer understanding requirements under the Consumer Duty. For example, the FCA’s Unfair Contract Terms Library shows that the FCA has agreed just one undertaking with an insurance firm to address unfair contract terms in the last six years. It has agreed on just three undertakings with insurance firms since September 2013. The FCA also needs to do more to ensure its Handbook reflects the latest legal developments such as the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. It is a damning indictment of the lack of seriousness with which the FCA is treating its wider consumer law responsibilities that the relevant sections of the FCA handbook have yet to be updated to reflect new DMCC Act powers on undertakings and penalties more than 15 months after the Act received Royal Assent. 

Which? is conscious that the FCA may have been taking informal action or using its remedy tools under its supervisory powers which are not always publicised. The FCA may even be commencing enforcement investigations which are then settled and which may not be published. However, even if this is the case, in view of the range of current issues that we have outlined, Which? would argue that this action isn’t having a sufficient effect.

To Which?'s knowledge, since 2020 the FCA has only issued 3 ‘final notices’ (under its formal enforcement procedure) to firms distributing insurance in relation to breaches of ICOBS or the Principles for Business. ENFG 4.2.11G states that the FCA ‘will ordinarily publicise enforcement action where this has led to the issue of a final notice’. Even allowing for the possibility that some final notices may not have been published, Which? thinks this volume of formal, visible enforcement action is insufficient. Although the FCA may refer to its actions which aren’t publicised, Which? would point to the need for visible action in order to act as a deterrent. We note that the FCA’s enforcement webpage refers to the importance of ‘deter(ring) wider misconduct’ and states that it focuses its efforts ‘on achieving impactful deterrence aligned to the FCA's strategic priorities, with particular focus on: Putting consumers' needs first, Delivering assertive action on market abuse, Reducing and preventing financial crime’. Publicising enforcement action could also help firms to understand expectations, particularly as these relate to the Consumer Duty, helping to lift standards across the market. 

Which? is concerned that if the FCA’s previous, current and future actions in relation to the issues raised in this super-complaint are concentrated on informal, supervisory or settled enforcement actions which aren’t publicised sufficiently or at all, then any deterrent effect will be minimal, as will opportunities for learning across the wider market. The outcomes monitoring issues raised in the FCA’s 2024 multi-firm review of outcomes monitoring under the Consumer Duty, and then again in the 2025 claims-handling report a year later, serve to justify this concern. Firms have certain duties in relation to outcomes monitoring, set out in FCA rules (PRIN 2A.9). The 2024 review stated that:

• ‘many firms need to make improvements in their monitoring to enable them to determine whether they are delivering good outcomes for retail customers, as required by the Duty.’ 
• ‘All insurers, insurance intermediaries and outsourced service providers operating within the insurance sector should consider these findings, including the good and poor practice observations.’ 
• ‘All firms participating in the review will receive individual feedback. Where appropriate, we will also consider use of supervisory tools to make sure that progress is made to meet the requirements of the Duty.’ 

However, the 2025 review observed multiple issues in relation to outcomes monitoring, including: 

• In relation to cash settlements: ‘We found that 5 firms either didn’t conduct any type of monitoring of cash settlements or had limited MI [management information].’
• In relation to storm definitions: ‘In this context, we are concerned that firms aren’t effectively monitoring customer outcomes to understand customer needs, consider product offerings where necessary, and communicate/disclose key parts of policy cover and exclusions clearly and in a way that supports customers’ understanding.’
• ‘While 12 firms in our sample had sufficient vulnerable customer MI to monitor customer outcomes, the others did not. Two firms had no specific monitoring of outcomes for vulnerable customers, while 9 others had inadequate MI or said the collection of this information was still in progress.’

Although we cannot verify whether the same firms had shortcomings with their outcomes monitoring in both 2024 and 2025, it appears that the FCA’s warning in 2024 that it would consider using its supervisory tools to ensure compliance with the Consumer Duty did not result in all firms making the necessary progress. 

In the context of failures to comply with the FCA’s Principles (such as the Consumer Duty), ENFG 3.2.3 says ‘To determine whether there has been a failure to comply with a Principle, the standards we will apply are those required by the Principles at the time the conduct took place. The FCA will not apply later, higher standards to behaviour when deciding whether to take enforcement action for a breach of the Principles. However, where conduct falls below expected standards, the FCA considers that it is legitimate for consequences to follow, even if the conduct is widespread within the industry or the Principle is expressed in general terms'. In Which?'s view, the FCA’s current approach to enforcement does not follow the spirit of its guidance here. 

5 What action Which? wants

Which? wants this super-complaint to lead to a reset of the markets for home and travel insurance. These markets need to fundamentally change if they are to meet the needs of consumers, who rely on these products and the firms selling them at some of the most difficult points in their lives. 

Which? expects this to lead to consumers:

• purchasing insurance products that better meet their needs and reasonable expectations; 
• better understanding relevant limitations of their insurance cover
• experiencing fewer problems when making claims;
• receiving more appropriate support from their insurer, especially if they are in vulnerable circumstances; and
• having fewer claims rejected.

Achieving this will require a significant shift in the mindset of the regulator and of the industry. This must be combined with concerted efforts by the FCA to better hold firms to account for their regulatory obligations.

Some of the matters that Which? is raising should be considered by the government too. This includes areas of law which the FCA and the government should jointly consider strengthening. This is needed to better reflect the weak position that consumers find themselves in when purchasing insurance and making claims.

Which? wants action in three areas, starting with the most urgent: 

• Urgent FCA action to address non-compliance by firms.
• An FCA market study to address the market dynamics driving poor customer outcomes. 
• A joint FCA and government initiative to review consumer protection legal frameworks in insurance.

5.1 Urgent FCA action to address non-compliance by firms

The FCA’s 2025 claims-handling review did not reach explicit conclusions on whether any of the reviewed firms had failed to comply with FCA rules. The FCA should now reach those conclusions urgently. It should publicly state how many of those firms have breached FCA rules, and outline what it is doing to address this and by when.

Hundreds of other firms operating in the home and travel insurance markets were not covered by the FCA's claims-handling review. The FCA must outline what initial assessment it has made of the scale of potential non-compliance among these firms. It should then outline how and when it will address any non-compliance, and report on progress. 

The FCA can only name individual firms under certain circumstances where they are under an enforcement investigation. However, it can and should indicate the number of firms it is investigating, either through its enforcement or supervision activities.

5.2 An FCA market study to address the market dynamics driving poor customer outcomes

It can be difficult for firms to break out of market norms when they may price themselves out of being competitive by investing more than competitors to support good customer outcomes. Proper supervision and enforcement will help to some extent to level the playing field. But the regulation and supervision of individual firms is unlikely to be sufficient to address systemic issues in these markets. 

Which? believes a market study is needed to analyse, understand and address the underlying issues driving poor customer outcomes. The scope of this market study must be sufficient to address the causes of poor outcomes. This should include addressing issues with the processes through which home and travel insurance products are sold, including through comparison tools, which are the most common route for consumers to purchase these products. It would therefore need to assess the extent to which consumers are provided with adequate information about firms’ claims-handling outcomes and the key features and limitations of their products. This will help to put more competitive pressure on firms to treat customers fairly and to address common misunderstandings through the insurance sales process, whether directly from a provider or through a distributor.

The market study should also investigate the business models driving poor claims-handling. This should include issues with the oversight of outsourced claims-handling providers and other third parties, and commercial arrangements between firms, to ensure that firms throughout the supply chain are incentivised to support consumers and make timely and fair claims decisions. 

Which? expects a market study to lead to a robust set of policy interventions so that the market works more effectively to reward firms that support good consumer outcomes and penalise those that do not. This could include demand-side and supply-side remedies focused on improving how consumers make decisions when purchasing insurance. By better enabling consumers to assess quality and ensure that products meet their needs, this would place greater competitive pressure on firms to improve their products and sales processes, treat customers properly during the claims process and to handle claims fairly. 

Any such remedies would require a thorough programme of research and testing to understand how best to improve the sales process. Which? would welcome discussions on how it and other civil society organisations can help design and test potential solutions.

5.3 A joint FCA and government initiative to review consumer protection legal frameworks in insurance and identify key areas where these need strengthening

The nature of insurance means that consumers are in an inherently difficult position when purchasing insurance and making claims: 

• They have limited information and capacity to assess their risks compared to insurers, who have vast amounts of data and intellectual property. 
• It is hard for a consumer to determine what they should cover and for how much, and to answer detailed questions about this. 
• It is rare for someone to make a claim, so this can be a difficult process to navigate.
• Claims are often made at difficult points in people’s lives.

This can make it extremely challenging to go up against an insurer who has every incentive to hold them to the letter of the law, and in some cases not to uphold the law. Existing insurance and consumer law provides key protections in addition to FCA rules. However, this is not always applied effectively or providing sufficient protection in practice. 

Which? is proposing that the FCA works with the government on some key areas where the law could be strengthened, to better counteract the weak position that consumers find themselves in when purchasing insurance and making claims. In particular, the FCA and the government should review whether CIDRA 2012 and the Insurance Act 2015 are working as intended. 

Annexes

Footnotes

[1] These equate to 60% of adults holding a contents insurance policy, 53% holding a buildings insurance policy, 27% holding an annual travel insurance policy, and 23% holding a single-trip travel insurance policy within the previous 12 months. FCA (2025) Financial Lives 2024 Survey. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/financial-lives/financial-lives-2024. ↑

[2] ‘Multi-firm work and market studies across different sectors to drive up standards. [...] Our multi-firm work will also look at how swiftly the insurance industry responds to claims, including where customers are more likely to show characteristics of vulnerability.' FCA (2024) Business Plan 2024/25. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/business-plans/2024-25. ↑

[3] Recording and use of inbound claims calls (mainly household); Communication and ownership throughout the claim; Management of supply chains (household); The emergency assistance activities of travel insurers and the need for the right insurance; Insurance in relation to medical conditions (travel); Consumer outcomes in long chains of delegation; The clarity of product documentation.  FCA (2014) TR14/8 - Insurers’ management of claims – household and retail travel. p.14. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/thematic-reviews/tr14-8-insurers-management-claims-household-retail-travel. ↑

[4] The FCA’s consumer research found that 20% of successful claimants and 34% of unsuccessful claimants were either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied about being updated about the progress of their claim. Of Chartered Institute of Insurance members who completed the survey, a combined 29% for household and travel respondents disagreed with the statement that claimants are kept up-to-date throughout the claims process. FCA (2014) TR14/8 - Insurers’ management of claims – household and retail travel. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/thematic-reviews/tr14-8-insurers-management-claims-household-retail-travel. ↑

[5] ‘We saw issues relating to: Poor claims and supplier management; Ineffective management of customer expectations, particularly relating to timescales; Firms not making sure customers are kept updated on their claim’s progress […] Some insurers had limited control over their outsourced claims handling arrangements.’ FCA (2025) Home and travel claims handling arrangements: good practice and areas for improvement. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-and-poor-practice/home-travel-claims-handling-arrangements. ↑

[6]  ‘Feedback to insurers involved in the project was provided informally at the conclusion of the visits to claims operations, giving our immediate views on what we had seen. In a number of cases we required the firm to take action to correct problems. Later, more structured feedback was provided to the senior management of each of the ten insurers; this included the firm specific results from the quantitative consumer research…A seminar targeted at chief executives and directors of claims was held at the FCA on 9 April…As is pointed out elsewhere, this thematic review has not given detailed consideration to whether rules such as those highlighted above are being met…It is likely that household and travel insurers − as a minimum − will want to reflect on the findings of this project and what it means for their business. Insurers should also expect that we are likely to want to discuss claims with them as part of our ongoing Pillar 1 supervisory work. ’ FCA (2014) TR14/8 - Insurers’ management of claims – household and retail travel. pp.6-7 & 28. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/thematic-reviews/tr14-8-insurers-management-claims-household-retail-travel. ↑

[7]  ‘Some firms are not yet able to demonstrate they have effective governance and controls in relation to our three key expectations set out above. Work remains to be done by these firms to ensure they are receiving the right management information and that data submitted is accurate. In addition, more work is needed to ensure good flows of information between brokers and manufacturers…We will continue to monitor how firms are meeting our expectations in relation to Cost of Living and how prepared they are for the Consumer Duty coming into force.’ FCA (2023) Cost of Living: good and poor practice in the general insurance market. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-and-poor-practice/cost-living-good-and-poor-practice-general-insurance-market. ↑

[8]  The FCA provided feedback to the specific firms involved in the review and said that all insurers should consider the findings. Firms that identified gaps in their compliance ‘should act immediately, putting robust plans in place to address any shortcomings’. The FCA said that: ‘Where appropriate, we will also consider use of supervisory tools to make sure that progress is made to meet the requirements of the Duty.’ FCA (2024) Insurance multi-firm review of outcomes monitoring under the Consumer Duty. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/multi-firm-reviews/insurance-multi-firm-review-outcomes-monitoring-under-consumer-duty. ↑

[9] ‘This action follows findings in the FCA’s latest fair value measures data, which shows that only 6% of the amount customers pay in premiums for GAP insurance is paid out in claims...The FCA’s assessment of the value provided by GAP insurance includes data going back to 2008. In our 2014 market study, we found that only 10% of premiums were paid out in claims, on average, between 2008-2012.’ FCA (2024) GAP insurers agree to suspend sales following FCA concerns over fair value. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/gap-insurers-agree-suspend-sales-following-fca-concerns-over-fair-value. ↑

[10] Under Chapter 4 of Part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Availablefrom: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/part/3/chapter/4. ↑

[11] See the following two examples: 1. Chartered Institute of Insurance (2020) CII aims to close customer expectation gap. Available from: https://www.cii.co.uk/news-insight/media/press-releases/articles/cii-aims-to-close-customer-expectation-gap/8eb6ae8c-54f7-4582-8147-dadc5d978a80?srsltid=AfmBOooOgeHfuR__p6nat93iHeTBoStF_beDUYUQvwirmQrwJG9_Xyav. 2. Association of British Insurers (2023) Boardroom Forum: Managing the Expectation Gap in General Insurance. Available from: https://www.abi.org.uk/events/2023/11/boardroom-forum/. ↑

[12] See, for example, the FCA’s conclusions on claims acceptance rates for storm claims in its 2025 claims-handling review and its conclusions on falling claims acceptance rates in its 2023 cost of living review: FCA (2025) Home and travel claims handling arrangements: good practice and areas for improvement. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-and-poor-practice/home-travel-claims-handling-arrangements. FCA (2023) Cost of Living: good and poor practice in the general insurance market. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-and-poor-practice/cost-living-good-and-poor-practice-general-insurance-market ↑

[13] For example, 39% of home insurance buyers expect storm damage to fences to be covered by a typical home insurance policy, and 51% of travel insurance buyers expect to be covered for missed connecting flights. Between 34% and 49% of buyers of relevant products expected to be covered for other scenarios which are typically excluded from cover, such as wet rot in floorboards or valuables stolen from hotel rooms. Which? (2025) Risky Business: Consumer confusion around general insurance. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/risky-business-consumer-confusion-around-generalinsurance-atkz55a7BhBR. ↑

[14]  ‘5. The number of enforcement investigations currently in progress in the general insurance and protection sector. Please provide a breakdown by: a. Number of firms; b. Number of individuals. We currently have 6 investigations open, 2 into firms and 4 into individuals.’ FCA (2024) Information on FCA S166 reviews - October 2024. Reference Case Number: FOI11636. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/freedom-information/information-fca-s166-reviews-october-2024. ↑

[15] ‘6. The number of enforcement investigations that have commenced in the general insurance and protection sector in the last 12 months. Please provide a breakdown by: a. Number of firms b. Number of individuals. No investigations in the general insurance and protection sector have been opened in the last 12 months.’ FCA (2024) Information on FCA S166 reviews - October 2024. Reference Case Number: FOI11636. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/freedom-information/information-fca-s166-reviews-october-2024 ↑

[16] ‘While the Consumer Duty includes requirements around product governance, price and value, insurance firms subject to, and complying with, PROD 4 for non-investment insurance products, will already meet the products and services outcome, and the price and value outcome of the Duty.’ FCA (2022) General insurance value measures data - July to December 2021. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/data/general-insurance-value-measures-jul-dec-2021. ↑

[17] For travel insurance, 81% represents a weighted average across single-trip, annual worldwide, and annual European cover. FCA (2024) General insurance value measures data 2023. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/data/general-insurance-value-measures-data-2023. ↑

[18] Online Poll with 1,675 people who had made a home and travel insurance claim in the last three years. The survey took place from 2nd to 19th February 2024. More details regarding the survey methodology can be found in Which? (2024) Consumer harm in the insurance claims process. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/consumer-harm-in-the-insurance-claims-process-adkwv4h42JVt. ↑

[19] The FCA’s consumer research found that 20% of successful claimants and 34% of unsuccessful claimants were either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied about being updated about the progress of their claim. Of Chartered Institute of Insurance members who completed the survey, a combined 29% for household and travel respondents disagreed with the statement that claimants are kept up-to-date throughout the claims process. FCA (2014) TR14/8 - Insurers’ management of claims – household and retail travel. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/thematic-reviews/tr14-8-insurers-management-claims-household-retail-travel. ↑

[20] Online Poll with 1,675 people who had made a home and travel insurance claim in the last three years. The survey took place from 2nd to 19th February 2024. Specific base sizes: Did not have a good initial contact (425). More details regarding the survey methodology can be found in Which? (2024) Consumer harm in the insurance claims process. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/consumer-harm-in-the-insurance-claims-process-adkwv4h42JVt. ↑

[21] Online Poll with 1,675 people who had made a home and travel insurance claim in the last three years. The survey took place from 2nd to 19th February 2024. Base sizes: Claim partially accepted or rejected (253), Not given reason why claim partially accepted or rejected (61). More details regarding the survey methodology can be found in Which? (2024) Consumer harm in the insurance claims process. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/consumer-harm-in-the-insurance-claims-process-adkwv4h42JVt. ↑

[22] Online Poll with 1,675 people who had made a home and travel insurance claim in the last three years. The survey took place from 2nd to 19th February 2024. Base sizes: Severely impacted by the event leading to their claim (565), Not severely impacted (1,110). More details regarding the survey methodology can be found in Which? (2024) Consumer harm in the insurance claims process. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/consumer-harm-in-the-insurance-claims-process-adkwv4h42JVt. ↑

[23] Online Poll with 1,675 people who had made a home and travel insurance claim in the last three years. The survey took place from 2nd to 19th February 2024. Base sizes: Severely impacted by the event leading to their claim (565), Not severely impacted (1,110), Pre-existing mental health problems (139). More details regarding the survey methodology can be found in Which? (2024) Consumer harm in the insurance claims process. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/consumer-harm-in-the-insurance-claims-process-adkwv4h42JVt. ↑

[24] Online Poll with 1,675 people who had made a home and travel insurance claim in the last three years. The survey took place from 2nd to 19th February 2024. Base sizes: Severely impacted by the event leading to their claim (565), Not severely impacted (1,110). More details regarding the survey methodology can be found in Which? (2024) Consumer harm in the insurance claims process. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/consumer-harm-in-the-insurance-claims-process-adkwv4h42JVt. ↑

[25] ‘Our findings in relation to storm damage claims and cash settlements suggested widespread issues around consumer understanding and specific issues around claims handling in a smaller number of firms. Given these findings and the context provided by our rules, we believe these issues are best addressed through a combination of wider industry recommendations and actions allied to individual firm feedback and actions, as set out in our report'. See Annex C: The FCA’s response to Which?’s Freedom of Information request. ↑

[26]  ‘Our findings in relation to storm damage claims and cash settlements suggested widespread issues around consumer understanding and specific issues around claims handling in a smaller number of firms. Given these findings and the context provided by our rules, we believe these issues are best addressed through a combination of wider industry recommendations and actions allied to individual firm feedback and actions, as set out in our report'. See Annex C: The FCA’s response to Which?’s Freedom of Information request. ↑

[27] Online Poll with 1,675 people who had made a home and travel insurance claim in the last three years. The survey took place from 2nd to 19th February 2024. Specific base sizes: Asked to submit evidence (1,275). More details regarding the survey methodology can be found in Which? (2024) Consumer harm in the insurance claims process. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/consumer-harm-in-the-insurance-claims-process-adkwv4h42JVt. ↑

[28] A weighted average from complaints published by the FOS between 1/1/24 and 31/12/24, for which ‘contents’, ‘buildings’ or ‘travel’ insurance was recorded by the FOS as a product type, and ‘claim declined’ recorded in the ‘complaint issue’ field. Note that this field records one aspect of the complaint at the time it was made by the consumer, and doesn’t necessarily represent the ‘main’ issue in the complaint, or the reason for which a complaint was upheld. ↑

[29] See the following three reports: Which? (2025) Risky Business: Consumer confusion around general insurance. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/risky-business-consumer-confusion-around-general-insurance-atkz55a7BhBR. Fairer Finance (2023) The state of Terms and Conditions and Policy Wordings after one year of the Consumer Duty. Available from: https://www.fairerfinance.com/insights/blog/the-state-of-terms-and-conditions-and-policy-wordings-after-one-year-of-the-consumer-duty. Fairer Finance (2023) The FCA’s latest Financial Live survey reveals some troubling facts about communications in the insurance sector. Available from: https://www.fairerfinance.com/insights/blog/what-does-the-fcas-latest-financial-lives-survey-reveal-about-the-state-of-communications-in-the-financial-services-sector. ↑

[30] Such as the unfair contract terms provisions in Part 2 of the CRA 2015, and the unfair commercial practices prohibitions in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the DMCCA 2024. ↑

[31] Assuming those who either incorrectly think they would be covered or who don’t know risk making a claim which would be rejected. For example, in addition to the 39% of home insurance buyers who think they would be covered for storm damage to fences, 15% said they didn’t know, totalling 54% at risk of making a claim which would likely be rejected. This figure was above 50% for all four home insurance scenarios tested. Which? (2025) Risky Business: Consumer confusion around general insurance. Available from: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/risky-business-consumer-confusion-around-general-insurance-atkz55a7BhBR. ↑

[32] The FCA’s enforcement policy in relation to unfair terms is set out in the UNFCOG section of the FCA Handbook (available from: https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/UNFCOG/1/?view=chapter) but this does not appear to be applied in practice. ↑

[33] Particularly the Insurance Act 2015 and the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representation) Act 2012. ↑

[34] Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. 4: Qualifying misrepresentations: definitions and remedies and 5: Qualifying misrepresentations: Classification and presumptions. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/crossheading/qualifying-misrepresentations. ↑

[35] Under Section 348, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. ↑

[36] ‘5. The number of enforcement investigations currently in progress in the general insurance and protection sector. Please provide a breakdown by: a. Number of firms b. Number of individuals. We currently have 6 investigations open, 2 into firms and 4 into individuals.’ FCA (2024) Information on FCA S166 reviews - October 2024. Reference Case Number: FOI11636. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/freedom-information/information-fca-s166-reviews-october-2024. ↑

[37]  ‘6. The number of enforcement investigations that have commenced in the general insurance and protection sector in the last 12 months. Please provide a breakdown by: a. Number of firms b. Number of individuals. No investigations in the general insurance and protection sector have been opened in the last 12 months.’ FCA (2024) Information on FCA S166 reviews - October 2024. Reference Case Number: FOI11636. Available from: https://www.fca.org.uk/freedom-information/information-fca-s166-reviews-october-2024 ↑