Not upheld: PPI mis-selling complaint against Dayinsure.com Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs H complained that Dayinsure mis-sold her a learner driver motor insurance policy by failing to clearly communicate that an accompanying driver must hold a UK driving licence. When Mrs H's car was damaged the next day while accompanied by Mr J, who held only a European licence, the Insurer declined the claim. Mrs H argued that a Dayinsure website advert did not mention the UK licence requirement. The ombudsman found that although the website information about legal requirements did not include this requirement, Dayinsure clearly presented it during the sales process and in post-sale documentation, requiring Mrs H to affirm she met the acceptance criteria. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

In a non-advised, information-only sale, firms must provide clear, fair and not misleading information so customers can make informed decisions. The ombudsman found that Dayinsure clearly presented the UK driving licence requirement during the sales process, requiring Mrs H to affirm she met the acceptance criteria before proceeding. The requirement was also set out in post-sale documentation including the IPID, schedule and certificate. Although the website information about legal requirements did not mention the UK licence requirement (as it is not legally required), the Insurer's specific requirement was explained via a weblink. The ombudsman concluded that even if Mrs H did not understand the website information, the requirement was clearly set out during the actual sales process when she took out the cover.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website