HALIFAX BANKING GROUP INSURANCE BREACHED EQUALITY ACT 2010 PART 3.

My post content

Shared Responsibility Exposure with SBS Claims.

CLAIM NO. 18521630.
Shared Responsibility Exposure — Halifax/Lloyds and SBS jointly responsible for the failures in this claim
Systemic failure: SBS misclassified my device twice, Halifax breached DISP twice, and 15 complaints have now been upheld.

itle: Halifax has upheld 15 failures from just 2 complaint events — and SBS misclassified my device twice

Halifax and SBS have now upheld 15 separate failures in my claim — and these relate to only 2 of the 32 complaint events raised so far. Halifax has already issued £100 compensation without any consultation, which itself is another failure under FOS rules requiring transparency.

SBS Claims are not registered loss adjusters. They are fulfilment agents, and when a claim involves anything more complex than a kettle, the process collapses.

My insured device was a Dell G15 5521 SE Special Edition with:

Alienware R2‑class internals

240Hz, 3ms matte (non‑glare) display

Full‑fat 130W sustained GPU

12‑zone chassis RGB

Over‑engineered cooling

99th percentile PassMark performance

SBS declared it BER, then incorrectly classed it as a mid‑tier gaming laptop and told Halifax to pay £999.99 — with zero consultation.

After I complained, SBS finally checked the Dell Service Tag and Halifax paid another £1,603, again without consulting me.

Even after this, SBS still failed to match the correct class. They proposed a Legion 7 Pro but refused to disclose:

The SKU

The retailer

The engineering class

The cooling class

The GPU wattage

The display class

Under FOS rules, once the correct class is established, the customer chooses the replacement, not SBS and not the insurer. You cannot be forced into a cheaper or lower‑tier model.

This is now 15 upheld failures from Halifax and SBS — and that’s from only 2 of the 32 complaint events so far. Consumers deserve transparency, correct classification, and proper consultation. None of that happened here.

For transparency: I know how to navigate these processes because I work in advocacy and previously volunteered with Citizens Advice. I understand how insurers must apply DISP, how upheld complaint findings work, and what “like‑for‑like” means under FOS rules.
Halifax has already upheld 15 failures from just 2 of the 32 complaint events so far, and even issued £100 compensation without consultation, which itself is another failure under the same rules.

Where things stand today:
There are still 30 complaint events waiting to be resolved. The last two offers/payments have been formally rejected, and I am still waiting for Halifax/SBS to confirm the correct class, which, based on the engineering tier and display specification, is a Strix Scar 18 or equivalent. We are now only days away from the FOS/FCA receiving the full PDF dossier detailing every upheld failure, consultation breach, and process breakdown.

The CEO office (Charlie Nunn’s team) has already been notified about the non‑functioning contact channels, unmonitored inboxes, and repeated failures to consult — all of which create further FOS‑relevant issues.

Equality Act 2010 (Part 3):
This claim also involves disability‑related screen requirements under the Equality Act 2010, Part 3. My original device had a 240Hz matte, non‑glare display, which is essential for my ocular condition. Halifax and SBS failed to consider this during the replacement process, despite being informed. This is now part of the upheld complaint findings.

For transparency:
I understand these processes because I work in advocacy and previously volunteered with Citizens Advice. Halifax has already upheld 15 failures from just 2 of the 32 complaint events, and even issued £100 compensation without consultation, which itself is another failure under DISP and FOS rules. The list of unresolved issues continues to grow.

This is now a clear case of Shared Responsibility Exposure between Halifax and SBS. Both firms have played equal parts in how this claim has gone wrong from the start.
So what rules have they broken so far?