AWP P&C S.A. · DRN-6208590

The complaint Mr and Mrs S are unhappy with the assistance received from AWP P&C S.A. under their travel insurance policy. All reference to AWP includes its medical assistance team and other agents appointed to handle claims and complaints on its behalf. What happened Mr and Mrs S were abroad when Mrs S unfortunately was involved in an accident. She required emergency medical attention and was admitted to hospital. Once Mrs S was deemed fit to fly, AWP arranged for her and Mr S to be repatriated back to the UK. Mr and Mrs S are unhappy that AWP: • didn’t ask whether Mrs S had a preference of either a male or female medical escort to assist her. • arranged an indirect flight back to the UK and didn’t book a direct flight with Mr and Mrs S’ preferred airline. • didn’t communicate the repatriation plans. • didn’t provide a call back to them from a senior member of staff as requested. • hasn’t covered the travel expenses for both of their daughters. AWP didn’t uphold their complaint. Our investigator looked into what happened and partially upheld Mr and Mrs S’ concerns. He recommended AWP pay Mr and Mrs S £150 to reflect the impact its errors had on them. AWP accepted our investigator’s recommendations. Mr and Mrs S disagreed and raised further points in reply. These didn’t change our investigator’s opinion, so this complaint has been passed to me to consider everything afresh 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. I’ve considered all points made by Mr and Mrs S along with all the other evidence. I won’t respond to each of these. I hope they understand that no discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. The rules that govern the Financial Ombudsman Service allow me to do this as we are an informal dispute resolution service. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because

-- 1 of 4 --

I’ve overlooked it. I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every point to fulfil my statutory remit. In considering what’s fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, I’ve taken into account all relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and good industry practice at the relevant time. This includes AWP’s regulatory obligation to handle insurance claims promptly and fairly. Medical escort When arranging a medical escort for Mrs S to assist her on her journey back to the UK, I’m not persuaded AWP was under any obligation (regulatory, legal or otherwise) to proactively ask Mrs S whether she preferred to have a male or female escort. Once AWP was made aware that Mrs S wasn’t happy to be accompanied by a male medical professional (because she would require assistance with going to the toilet for example), it made a request for a female medical escort. Arrangements were then made for a female medical professional to also travel to be with Mrs S and accompany her back to the UK. However, due to reasons outside of AWP’s control, the female medical professional could only escort Mrs S on the first leg of the flight back to the UK and the male colleague took over for the second leg of the flight. I’m not persuaded that was unfair in the circumstances. Although Mrs S’ preference was taken into account by AWP, I wouldn’t reasonably expect repatriation plans to be changed or delayed because of the gender of the medical escort in the circumstances of this case. The gender of a medical professional doesn’t impact their ability to provide the medical support and assistance required to escort Mrs S back to the UK. Indirect flight I can understand why Mr and Mrs S wanted AWP to book a different flight to travel back to the UK. Particularly as this was a direct flight. And when the indirect flight was mentioned to Mr and Mrs S, they were clear that they didn’t want to return to the UK on this flight. From what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied AWP took reasonable steps to try to see if there were other flights available – including Mr and Mrs S’ preferred (direct) flight. However, Mrs S required a stretcher, and I haven’t seen anything which suggests that Mr and Mrs S’ preferred airline had given clearance. Further, I haven’t seen any compelling medical evidence from the time reflecting that it was medically necessary for Mrs S to travel back to the UK on a direct flight. Rather than risk not obtaining clearance, and because Mrs S was fit to fly (with a medical escort and other requirements), I’m persuaded that AWP acted fairly and reasonably by securing seats on the indirect flight back to the UK. I accept that this was likely a very busy time of year for airlines and that this would’ve impacted availability. I’m satisfied that AWP didn’t want to risk not being able to secure the available (indirect) flight and miss the opportunity to repatriate Mr and Mrs S back to the UK and readmitting her to the care of a UK hospital which had been arranged. AWP’s communication and the service provided

-- 2 of 4 --

I’m satisfied that AWP should’ve provided Mr and Mrs S with earlier and clearer updates about the repatriation plans. For example, AWP should’ve better explained why the indirect flight was being booked rather than simply booking this flight without discussing again with Mr and Mrs S after they’d been categoric that they didn’t want to take this flight. They were both situationally vulnerable, abroad and Mrs S had sustained serious injuries. From what I’ve seen they were both, understandably, worried. And when Mr and Mrs S raised issues with AWP (including about the gender of the initial medical escort who’d travelled to be with Mrs S and escort her home) and asked to speak to a senior of member of staff, I think AWP should’ve been more proactive in arranging a call back for their concerns to be discussed. I’m satisfied that this would’ve caused Mr and Mrs S some unnecessary distress and inconvenience at an already difficult time. I’m satisfied AWP should pay Mr and Mrs S £150 compensation to reflect the impact of this. The travel costs for their daughters I understand from Mr and Mrs S that AWP has covered the travel costs of one of their daughters. Two of their daughters had travelled to the country Mr and Mrs S had visited to be with them. The ‘emergency medical and associated expenses’ section of the policy terms does provide cover for: Additional travel and accommodation expenses: …for one person, who is resident in your home area, to travel to, remain with or escort you back to your home area on the advice of our medical adviser… I’ve not seen evidence supporting that it as medically necessary for Mr and Mrs S’ daughters to travel to be with Mrs S. And Mrs S was being supported by Mr S. However, if AWP has agreed to cover the travel costs of one Mr and Mrs S’ daughters, as Mr and Mrs S say is the case, then I’m satisfied that’s fair and reasonable. I don’t think it would be fair and reasonable for me to direct AWP to cover the travel costs of a second daughter, outside the policy terms. Other issues Mr and Mrs S’ initial complaint also included concerns about the way AWP handled the transportation of Mrs S via ground ambulance to another medical facility whilst abroad. Our investigator explained in their opinion dated November 2025 why he wasn’t upholding that aspect of the complaint. When responding to our investigator’s opinion Mr and Mrs S said they “acknowledge and accept your finding regarding the…road ambulance transfer between hospitals”. As that issue is no longer in dispute, I’m satisfied that I don’t need to consider it as part of my determination.

-- 3 of 4 --

However, Mr and Mrs S are unhappy that a male medical professional also accompanied Mrs S in the road ambulance. For similar reasons as I’ve already explained, I’m not persuaded that this was unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances. And, further, I can’t see that a request was made for a female medical escort prior to Mrs S being transported by road ambulance whilst abroad. My final decision I partially uphold this complaint to the extent set out above. I direct AWP P&C S.A. to pay Mr and Mrs S £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs S to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. David Curtis-Johnson Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --