ManyPets Ltd · DRN-6067822

The complaint Mr B is unhappy with the sale of pet insurance sold by ManyPets Ltd. What happened Mr B purchased pet insurance cover for his dog, C. Mr B says he disclosed a pre-existing medical condition of C relating to his allergies but he was told he could apply online and the policy would cover any pre-existing conditions. ManyPets say it has no record of Mr B speaking to any of its agents during the sale. It says during the online process Mr B would’ve been made aware of what the policy covers, and key limitations. Mr B would also have had access to policy information including the policy booklet containing the terms and conditions for the insurance he’d selected. The policy booklet explained the circumstances in which pre-existing conditions would be covered. The Insurance Product Information Document (IPID) further explained: What is not insured? Cover if your pet needs medical treatment: We cannot cover pre-existing conditions. This means anything that has shown signs and symptoms or has had treatment, medication or advice for in the last 3 months before your policy starts. Mr B tried to make a claim on his policy for C’s allergy condition. Mr B was told his claim wouldn’t be covered because C had not been free of signs, symptoms, treatment, and medication for 3 months since the date the policy was taken out. Mr B was unhappy about this, and said ManyPets had misinformed him about cover for pre-existing conditions. ManyPets didn’t uphold Mr B’s complaint. Unhappy with this response, Mr B referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service. The Investigator didn’t ask ManyPets to do anything in settlement of Mr B’s complaint. Mr B didn’t agree. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved, it has been passed to me for decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I thank Mr B for taking the time to explain everything that has happened since taking out insurance, and making a claim on his policy. I understand it has been a stressful time for Mr B. I’d like to reassure the parties that although I’ve only summarised the background to this complaint, so not everything that has happened or been argued is set out above, I’ve read and considered everything that has been provided.

-- 1 of 2 --

In a non-advised sale, we wouldn’t expect a business to advise or recommend that the consumer buy the policy. The duty on the business selling the policy is to make sure the consumer is given enough information that is clear, fair, and not misleading so that they can make an informed choice about whether the policy is right for them. ManyPets has provided screenshots showing the online journey Mr B would’ve experienced at the time of taking out his policy. Having reviewed this evidence, I’m persuaded that Mr B was provided with links to view the relevant information for his policy before deciding whether the cover was suitable for C. It’s not disputed that there were several links to open, and many pages of information to consider. When purchasing a contract for pet insurance, like the one Mr B entered into, it’s not unusual to be presented with several different documents to review and accept, before purchasing cover. These terms are in place to help explain the full benefits, and limitations of cover. Usually, a business would include a more general summary about the insurance policy in the Insurance Product Information Document (IPID). But it’s common for more detailed information to be provided in the policy terms and conditions document. I’ve seen that the online process included links to both these documents before Mr B was given the option to confirm his acceptance of the policy. I’ve carefully considered Mr B’s extensive representations about the sale of the policy, and what he was told about pre-existing conditions when he was contacted by a ManyPets agent. ManyPets has searched its records but says it has no record of this call despite checking the date and time Mr B says the call was made, and the number he called from. When evidence is contradictory or inconclusive (or both) I have to make a finding on the balance of probabilities. That is what I find is most likely to have happened in view of the available evidence and wider circumstances. I appreciate the experience described by Mr B about what he was told, and what he relied on before applying for insurance online. But I’m unable to make a finding against ManyPets based on Mr B’s testimony alone. Instead, I’ve considered the sales process and what information was presented at the time. The exclusion for pre-existing conditions is clearly set out in the policy documentation. This includes the policy document itself, and the IPID. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, I’m not persuaded ManyPets agreed to waive the exclusion for pre-existing conditions at any point during the sales process. I’m more persuaded that ManyPets did enough to explain the terms, conditions, and limitations of cover, and Mr B was able to make an informed decision about the suitability of purchasing pet insurance with ManyPets. I can appreciate Mr B’s disappointment with this outcome. But I haven’t seen any evidence to persuade me that ManyPets’s actions have been wrong, or unfair. So, I won’t be asking ManyPets to do anything in settlement of this complaint. 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 B to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Neeta Karelia Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --