The petition of Mr Michael Osman and Mrs Katrina Osman of Woking, Surrey,
Declares that DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company should be investigated/reviewed due to their mishandling of our claim and that the scope of an investigation review should include but not limited to:
Their mishandling of our claim and our unfair treatment by DAS;
Their use of their associated Law Firm and Solicitors and their denial of our right to choose our own solicitor;
How they dealt with and undermined the evidence in relation to the extent of the encroachment over our property;
The instructions given to the expert surveyors and structural engineers engaged in the claims;
Their use of the Financial Ombudsman Service to dismiss our claim.
We made a claim in September 2019 with DAS Legal Expenses. Our policy allowed for an amount of £75,000 allocated per claim. Our legitimate claim was in the hands of DAS for over 5 years which caused a huge amount of work and stress and greatly affected our lives.
In 2020 DAS undermined the evidence and tried to force us to settle the claim cheaply for £4,000 which would not cover our losses or any court fees due to the extent of the damage/encroachment. We made a complaint about the handling of our claim by DAS and their associated firm of solicitors and sent the cheque back. DAS then prematurely closed our claim referring us to the FOS with full knowledge that the FOS had a huge backlog of complaints and would not be able to handle our claim as it involved too many different parties including Solicitors and Surveyors.
We obtained a Land Surveyor’s Advisory Report and Plan and a CPR at our own expense and sent this to DAS and finally after 2 years of requesting them to look at the evidence they eventually responded and advised us to get an Opinion from a Barrister again at our own cost which we did and this gave us 75% prospects of success. However again they engaged an associated Solicitor and undermined the evidence in an attempt to lose the claim eventually closing our claim again despite the amount of evidence in our favour and citing our unreasonable behalf.
DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance did not meet their obligations and at every turn attempted to lose our claim the cheapest way possible. This is unacceptable and has left us still dealing with the ongoing issues with costs still outstanding which DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses need to settle.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company number 00103274 is investigated/reviewed and to take any necessary action which it has the power to do. If any Legal Expenses Insurance Company is found not to have met their obligation they should have their licence revoked regardless as to whether they have changed their name or not.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 13P .]
[P003121]
Observations from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby):
The Government thanks the hon. Member for submitting the petition on behalf of their constituents regarding their legal expenses insurance claim. I am sorry to hear of the challenges Mr and Mrs Osman have faced.
The Treasury is responsible for setting the overall legal framework for financial services regulation, but it cannot intervene in individual cases. The Financial Conduct Authority is responsible for regulating and supervising the conduct of the financial services industry, and the Financial Ombudsman Service investigates individual consumers’ complaints against firms. The FCA and FOS are independent non-governmental bodies, and the independence of both is vital to their roles.
The Government are determined that insurers should treat customers fairly. Firms are required to do so under FCA rules. The FCA requires that insurers pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. This includes handling claims fairly and promptly, providing reasonable guidance to help policyholders make a claim, and settling claims promptly once terms are agreed. Firms that are regulated by the FCA are also required to operate complaints handling procedures to deal with complaints promptly and fairly. The FCA monitors firms and has robust powers to act against firms that breach its rules.
Where complaints are not resolved through a firm’s own complaints procedures, the complainant can contact FOS. FOS is an independent body established by Parliament to provide consumers and small businesses with a cost-free and quick route to resolve disputes with financial services firms. Firms are required, under the FCA’s rules, to co-operate with FOS and to comply promptly with any decision that the FOS may make. However, this is not a substitute for operating their own complaints handling procedures, as set out above.
I note that, in this case, Mr and Mrs Osman have already been directed to FOS and expressed concerns that the FOS process allows firms to delay the handling of complaints. The rules set out in the FCA handbook on how FOS should handle complaints state that
“The Ombudsman will attempt to resolve complaints at the earliest possible stage and by whatever means appear to him to be most appropriate, including mediation or investigation”.
Its statutory purpose is to resolve complaints quickly and informally. A number of factors may affect the time it takes FOS to resolve complaints that are referred to it. These factors vary from case to case. As a result, the time taken to resolve a complaint can vary significantly, from within just a few months to over a year. As FOS can make decisions which are final and binding on the parties to a complaint, the ombudsman will give both parties the chance to make representations. The ombudsman will then provide their provisional assessment, following which the parties may ask for a review and final determination by the ombudsman.
Your constituent may also wish to seek independent legal advice on other potential avenues of redress. Please pass on my thanks to Mr and Mrs Osman for taking the time to share their concerns.