Car Decision Reference 2022-0240

• Case Outcome: Partially upheld
• Subject Matter: Car
• Reference: 2022-0240
• Date: 22 July 2022
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Rejection of claim - non-disclosure & voiding ,Failure to provide correct information

Decision Ref:

2022-0240

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Car

Conduct(s) complained of:

Rejection of claim - non-disclosure & voiding

Failure to provide correct information

Outcome:

Partially upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The Complainant incepted a Motor Insurance Policy with the Provider on 14 February 2019.

This complaint concerns the Provider’s decision to void the Complainant’s policy due to his

failure, when applying for the policy, to disclose two claims he had within the previous five

years on a commercial insurance policy he held with a different insurer.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant says his spouse telephoned the Provider on his behalf on 1 February 2019

to obtain a private car insurance quotation for him. The Complainant says he later

telephoned the Provider on 13 February 2019 asking it to set up cover for him, based on the

quotation previously received. The Motor Insurance Policy came into force the following

day, on 14 February 2019, after the Complainant had confirmed to the Provider the

cancellation of his commercial insurance policy with a different insurer.

The Complainant says his car was set on fire outside his residence on 26 March 2019 and he

telephoned the Provider the following day, on 27 March 2019, to notify it of the loss.

Following its claim assessment, the Provider advised the Complainant by telephone and

letter on 11 April 2019 that it was voiding his Motor Insurance Policy on the basis that when

he applied for cover he had declared that he had no claims in the previous five years and

that it had now come to the Provider’s attention that this was not the case.

The Complainant says that during his spouse’s telephone call to the Provider on 1 February

2019, the Provider led him and his spouse to believe that it could not take his commercial

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

insurance policy into account, when setting up his private Motor Insurance Policy, but that

it would take into account his named driver experience on his spouse’s motor policy with

the Provider. The Complainant says that as a result, when he and his spouse advised the

Provider that he had no claims in the previous five years, they did so on the basis that there

had been no claims made in his name on his spouse’s motor policy.

The Complainant emailed a complaint to the Provider on 26 April 2019, as follows:

“ … When taking out this policy with [the Provider] my Wife rang and went through

all the details as she has always dealt with the administrative side of our affairs.

The girl that was dealing with this stated that she could not take my commercial

insurance record into account but could take my (sic) into account the named drivers

experience that I had in my Wife’s policy. There was a lot of questions asked in

relation to detail, and when the girl asked about accidents in the last five years my

Wife stated no because clearly the girl had told her that she could not take my

commercial insurance into account. As I never had an accident on my Wife’s policy or

made any claim she answered no.

I am really very annoyed over the treatment that I have received from [the Provider]

as they have made me feel like the criminal here.

When [the Provider] brought up the details of the accident number one I did not

realise the date as I had presumed that it happened longer than this, and number

two I did not think it was relevant as [the Provider] has stated that my commercial

insurance could not be taken into account when I was taking out this policy … ”

Following its complaint review, the Provider wrote to the Complainant on 14 May 2019 to

advise that it was standing over its decision to void his Motor Insurance Policy as he had

stated that he had been accident and claims free for the previous five years when applying

for cover when he had in fact two claims during that period, and that if he had disclosed

these claims at the time, the Provider would not have been in a position to offer him cover

as he would have been outside its new business acceptance criteria. The Provider also

enclosed a CD containing the recordings of three telephone calls that took place on 1

February, 13 February and 14 February 2019, relating to the Complainant’s application for

the policy. The Complainant sets out his complaint in the FSPO Complaint Form as follows:

“I took out insurance with [the Provider] … I did receive the transcripts from the

phone calls and the girl did ask my wife was there any accidents in the last nine years

which she replyed (sic) it wouldn’t be 9 years. She asked would it be five and my wife

said yes, it was actually 4½ years. I think it’s really unfair as there was no lies told. It

was a misunderstanding and I was with [the Provider] for 10 years named on a

policy”.

The Complainant maintains that the Provider has not provided recordings of all the

telephone calls that he and his spouse had with the Provider in relation to his policy.