Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained about Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd's cancellation of his van insurance policy after he failed to provide requested validation information within the specified deadline. Mr F was on holiday and did not respond to two requests for information sent by post and email in December 2018. He contacted Eridge on the cancellation date requesting an extension, but the policy had already been cancelled. The ombudsman found that Eridge acted reasonably by using multiple communication methods and providing adequate notice, and that Mr F could have checked his emails during the two-week period. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Eridge acted reasonably in requesting validation information and in cancelling the policy when Mr F failed to respond. The ombudsman noted that Eridge used multiple communication methods (post and email) to ensure Mr F was aware of the requests. Although Mr F was on holiday, the ombudsman considered that Mr F could have checked his emails during the two-week period provided. The policy terms permitted cancellation with at least seven days' written notice by post and/or email, which Eridge complied with. The ombudsman therefore concluded Eridge did nothing wrong.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website