Car Decision Reference 2022-0240

Case OutcomePartially upheld
Subject MatterCar
Date22 July 2022
Finantial SectorInsurance
Conducts Complained OfRejection of claim - non-disclosure & voiding ,Failure to provide correct information
Decision Ref:
Product / Service:
Conduct(s) complained of:
Rejection of claim - non-disclosure & voiding
Failure to provide correct information
Partially upheld
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 -
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
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.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT