Paymentshield Limited · DRN-5969220

The complaint Mr H and Mrs K are unhappy with PAYMENTSHIELD LIMITED’S (Paymentshield) decision to automatically uplift the sum insured for their buildings and contents insurance policy. What happened Mr H and Mrs K held a policy with Paymentshield which auto renewed. They said in 2024, automatic uplifts were applied to both the buildings and contents sum insured which exceeded their needs. They said the documents available on the portal didn’t flag what they considered to be such a material change, so they complained to Paymentshield in August 2025. Paymentshield responded to the complaint in September 2025. It said it had provided adequate notice of the changes made to the levels of cover when the policy renewed in the summer of 2025, by sending renewal documents a month before each renewal. It also said that it had made changes to the cover levels to ensure it was offering a product in line with industry standards. Mr H and Mrs K remained unhappy and referred their concerns to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Their complaint was reviewed by one of our investigators. He said he didn’t consider Paymentshield had done anything wrong. The policy had been set up by an independent financial firm who had arranged for it to automatically renew and if they were unhappy with this, those concerns needed to be directed to that company. Our investigator also said Paymentshield had given fair notice of the terms of the renewal, which included the increased sums insured, so he wasn’t going to ask it to do anything to put things right. Mr H and Mrs K didn’t agree. They said Paymentshield had a duty to provide clear information that wasn’t misleading and by failing to tell them the product they’d had previously held had been removed from the market, Paymentshield had acted incorrectly. So, this matter has been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’ve reached the same overall conclusion set out by our investigator and for largely the same reason. I’ve not addressed every piece of evidence provided, but my decision focuses on the issues I consider most relevant to reaching a decision I consider fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I’m satisfied Paymentshield gave Mr H and Mrs K a document, titled the Table of Changes, outlining the changes to their cover. It used the same reference codes as their 2024 policy terms, seems to have been provided at the same time as the policy terms, and clearly set out the increased buildings and contents sum insured as being £1,000,000 and £75,000 respectively. Mr H and Mrs K received and reviewed this document, as it formed part of their initial submissions and was referenced in their response to the investigator’s view.

-- 1 of 2 --

I’ve reviewed the June 2024 and June 2025 renewal documents. Each included a premium breakdown compared to the previous year and a warning that cheaper cover might be available elsewhere. This is prominent on the first page of an 18-page document. Both renewal documents clearly set out the buildings and contents sums insured on page three. These documents were provided a month before renewal, and I’m satisfied they clearly explained the level of cover and the premium being charged. Mr H and Mrs K’s original complaint was that the insurer should have done more to highlight the changes made to their policy. They later said as their original level of cover was no longer available, Paymentshield had chosen to withdraw their product and should have highlighted this more clearly. Paymentshield didn’t say it had withdrawn the product held by Mr H and Mrs K, but says it increased its minimum sum insured to meet wider industry standards and these changes applied to all customers. That commercial decision isn’t something this Service can interfere with. My role is to decide if Paymentshield communicated the changes to the sum insured clearly. I don’t agree with Mr H and Mrs K’s complaint that Paymentshield withdrew their policy, rather I find its explanation for the increase more persuasive. Having reviewed the information provided, and in particular the Table of Changes document and the 2024 and 2025 renewal documents, I’m satisfied Paymentshield clearly explained the changes that applied to Mr H and Mrs K’s policy. As I’ve not found it acted unfairly, I’m not asking it to take any further action. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H and Mrs K to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Emma Hawkins Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --