Many Pets Ltd · DRN-6009960

The complaint Mrs M has complained that Many Pets Ltd didn’t make her aware at the time she bought her lifetime pet policy that her premiums would significantly increase. What happened Mrs M insured her pet with Many Pets in May 2021. When she received her renewal invitation in May 2025, she discovered her premium had risen by 150%. In the 2024 policy year she paid £707.37 for the year and in 2025 she was being asked to pay £1,768.38 for that year. So she complained to the underwriter of the policy who didn’t think it had done anything wrong. Mrs M disagreed and brought that complaint to us. The investigator thought the underwriter hadn’t done anything wrong as it assessed her premium amount against its underwriting guide so Mrs M wasn’t singled out and treated unfairly as she was treated the same as anyone else in similar circumstances. On this basis that complaint was closed. However Mrs M noted that since 2021 when she first took out this policy that her premium had almost tripled in four years. In 2021 she paid £693.90 for that year. In 2022 it rose to £706.32 for that year. In 2023 it rose to £1,020.12 for that year. In 2024 it rose to £1,230.48 which she said forced her to reduce cover so that her premium was £707.40 for that year instead. Then in 2025, the premium rose to £1,768.32, even with this reduced cover. Mrs M then complained to Many Pets that she was never told her premium would ever increase to this amount. So the investigator set up this complaint. Many Pets had paid Mrs M the sum of £100 compensation for the upset the premium increase caused her which Mrs M didn’t think was at all adequate. The investigator was of the view that it was clear that Many Pets didn’t warn Mrs M effectively. Given the number of claims Mrs M made, it would now be difficult for Mrs M to move insurer as none of her pet’s pre-existing conditions would be covered, so all this had a bigger impact for Mrs M. On that basis she felt Many Pets should raise the compensation to £200 in total. Many Pets then agreed to this. However Mrs M maintained this level of compensation was inadequate, she can’t move insurers, and she had already reduced her cover significantly, and her breed of dog would likely live to 14 to 16 years of age so this would continue for several more years. given her dog was aged 13 years old. So on this basis her complaint was 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Having done so, I’m only upholding this complaint for the increase of compensation to £200 as suggested by the investigator. I do appreciate and understand that Mrs M will be very disappointed so I’ll now explain why. I also should explain I’m only dealing with how Many Pets sold the policy to Mrs M not how its underwriter increased the premium as that is a separate complaint against a different entity to Many Pets, which the investigator dealt with separately and which is now closed. Many Pets explained in its final response letter to Mrs M that when it started in 2017 its products were designed given the extensive market research and customer feedback. And it continued to listen to its customer feedback. Essentially therefore given rising vet costs along with the increased age of the pet insured, the premium was then affected by any claims made. Pet policies are sold on what is called an ‘non-advised’ basis. This means Many Pets don’t advise any potential customer whether their product is suitable for that customer’s needs. However it must produce the relevant information at the time of the sale to ensure the customer can make that decision for themselves. Many Pets explained to us that given Mrs M first became a policyholder in 2021 and then changed her cover in 2024, she needed to be treated as a pre-2022 policyholder. In 2022 Many Pets on the basis of its customer feedback decided that the claims made would effect the renewal premium, whereas before they didn’t. Many Pets acknowledges that it didn’t do enough in 2022 to inform policyholders adequately that this would mean premiums could increase substantially. And given that Mrs M was effectively insured since 2021, she wasn’t treated as a new policyholder in 2024 when she changed her cover, so she didn’t get the right information from Many Pets to ensure she was aware premiums could continue to rise for the lifetime of her pet and that there was no cap on how high those premiums could increase also. It would have been impossible in 2022 for Many Pets to be able to know what the premium increases in future years might be. Premium increases are more dynamic than that, as they are also based on the claims experience and indeed the cost of the claims depending on what treatment was advised by the vet; where Mrs M lived; breed or pet specific issues which might determine the level of likely claims; cost of vet treatment; costs of the development of vet treatment which continues to develop as vet science continues to be able to treat more and more conditions successfully (rather like human medicine does); increases in the cost of living; increases in the tax payable; etc. However it still remains that in 2022, Mrs M wasn’t given enough information about the fact premium rises would happen and with no cap on how high those premiums might rise to, as well. Therefore Many Pets made a compensation payment of £100 for the shock experienced by Mrs M by the significant premium increase. Like the investigator, I’m satisfied that Mrs M would have always bought this lifetime policy as it’s clear she wanted to avail of the advantages of the lifetime cover for her pet and she worked hard at reducing the extent of the cover so she could afford the premium for continued lifetime cover in 2024. Mrs M has also made several claims for one of two major ongoing conditions suffered by her pet which again affects the premium on renewal. I do appreciate that each time Mrs M claims for ongoing medication it’s considered another claim. I don’t think Many Pets or indeed its underwriter here, has done anything wrong with listing repeat medication costs as separate claims either, as it is paying those claims/costs for Mrs M. The number of claims and more importantly their total cost over the policy year all feed into the actuarial issues which then gives rise to the premium increase. So all the information is required for the premium to be rated effectively.

-- 2 of 3 --

These claims made by Mrs M, means any ongoing conditions her pet has wouldn’t be covered by any new insurer. Further, her dog’s age would make it difficult for Mrs M to find any insurer who would be willing to insure her dog too. And I agree with the investigator that the £100 compensation initially paid by Many Pets didn’t adequately take account of this. I also agree that it’s fair and reasonable here that the investigator suggested it should be raised to £200. I appreciate Mrs M’s view that this doesn’t go anyway towards her 150% premium increase. However it’s not compensation to ally the premium increase, or indeed her financial loss, it’s merely compensation for the shock and distress the increase caused her. This is in line with our approach on these matters so I consider it’s fair and reasonable too. My final decision So, for these reasons, it’s my final decision that I’m upholding this complaint for the payment of further compensation only. I now require Many Pets Ltd to pay Mrs M the total sum of £200, which I note it has now done so, following the investigator’s view. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Rona Doyle Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --