Partially upheld: Complaints handling failures complaint against U Drive Cover Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-3485147 of 2019-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. Complaints handling failures complaint against U Drive Cover Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-3485147 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2019-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | U Drive Cover Limited |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | Complaints handling failures |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | U Drive Cover Ltd must pay Mr O £70 additional compensation (in addition to the £30 already contributed) for the distress and inconvenience caused by the false cancellation text message between 21-22 January 2019. Payment must be made within 28 days, with interest at 8% per annum if paid later. |
Summary
Mr O purchased car insurance through U Drive Cover Ltd in October 2018 and was informed of an additional £195 premium due to a discrepancy in his driving licence experience. After Mr O complained and failed to pay immediately, U Drive sent a text message on 21 January 2019 falsely stating his policy had been cancelled, though it had not. Mr O refrained from driving his car for approximately one month believing the policy was cancelled. The ombudsman found U Drive's false cancellation message unreasonable and ordered £70 compensation for the distress caused between 21-22 January 2019, in addition to the £30 already offered. However, the ombudsman rejected compensation for loss of use of the car and could not consider complaints about the premium increase or complaint handling procedures.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while U Drive acted reasonably as a broker in requesting verification documents and that the agent was not rude during the call, U Drive acted unreasonably by sending a false text message stating the policy had been cancelled when it had not. The ombudsman determined this was an improper tactic to prompt payment. However, the ombudsman concluded Mr O was made reasonably aware by 22-24 January 2019 that his policy remained in place, so compensation for loss of use of the car for a month was not warranted. The ombudsman could not consider complaints about the premium increase (insurer's responsibility) or U Drive's complaint handling procedures (not a regulated activity).
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| U Drive Cover Limited, all decisions | 6 | 33% |
| Complaints handling failures, all decisions | 4,445 | 37% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 24,036 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website