Great Lakes Insurance SE · DRN-5903771

The complaint Mr H’s complaint is about a claim he made on his Great Lakes Insurance SE gadget insurance policy. Mr H says that Great Lakes treated him unfairly. In this decision all references to Great Lakes include their claims handlers What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them here. Instead, I’ll focus on giving my reasons for my 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. Having done so, I don’t uphold Mr H’s complaint for broadly the same reasons set out by the investigator. Before I explain why, I wish to acknowledge the submissions Mr H has made. Whilst I’ve read them all, I won’t be addressing each and every one. That’s not intended to be disrespectful. Rather it’s representative of the informal nature of the Financial Ombudsman Service. Instead, I’ll focus on whether Great Lakes did something wrong here. The starting point is the policy terms. They say: “Our liability, in respect of any one claim, will be limited to: The replacement cost of each gadget being claimed for and, in any event, shall not exceed the maximum liability for each gadget as shown on your Schedule of Insurance or the current market value of each gadget, whichever is lowest.” Mr H’s laptop was subject to accidental damage. Mr H says the damage occurred on a Friday and that he needed a laptop to work over the weekend, so he put in a claim on his policy and then purchased a replacement. Following this Mr H got in touch with Great Lakes to query whether they would offer him a cash settlement rather than repair his damaged laptop. Great Lakes agreed. The person he spoke to told him that they would calculate the settlement using the replacement value of an out of warranty laptop from the manufacturer. Mr H says that he is entitled to that value, which is £1,379, less the policy excess. On the other hand, Great Lakes have offered and paid Mr H the market value of the laptop based on an off the market equivalent. Great Lakes identified a suitable replacement on the open market for £1,047 noted as being in excellent condition. They deducted the excess from this amount and paid Mr H the balance. It’s not in dispute that the policy terms only provide for either the maximum liability on Mr H’s policy schedule or the current market value, whichever is the lowest. Mr H seems to accept that the amount Great Lakes paid him accords with his policy terms. What is in dispute is the

-- 1 of 2 --

misinformation he says Great Lakes gave him when he called them to enquire about a cash settlement. I’ve thought about what Mr H has said but I’m not satisfied that he has been prejudiced by the information Great Lakes accept was wrongly conveyed to him. I say so because he had already bought and paid for a new laptop before discussing anything at all with Great Lakes. So, he wasn’t led to believe he would receive the value of the new laptop he’d decided to buy himself. And by the time he made the call to Great Lakes, Mr H had already made an appointment with his manufacturer to have the value of it assessed. So, he wasn’t inconvenienced by arranging for this under false pretences. I accept that he might have had a brief loss of expectation after being told Great Lakes would calculate the settlement using the replacement value of an out of warranty laptop from the manufacturer. But Great Lakes compensated him for that by acknowledging and apologising for their mistake and paying him £50 in respect of this. I think that was reasonable in the circumstances and I’m not minded directing them to pay anymore here. I appreciate that Mr H feels that the misinformation caused him a great deal of anxiety. Although I can understand why he might have felt he was likely to receive more, I can’t say he made any financial decisions based on that misinformation, such that he acted to his detriment. For the reasons I’ve set out I think he was properly compensated for his disappointment. Because of this I don’t think Great Lakes need to anything more here. Finally, I know Mr H is unhappy with the handling of his complaint and the time it took Great Lakes to provide him with a response. As the investigator explained, complaint handling is not a regulated activity we can consider on a standalone basis. As such it does not fall within my remit and therefore, I am not able to consider this further. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold Mr H’s complaint against Great Lakes Insurance SE. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 30 March 2026. Lale Hussein-Venn Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --