Veste

Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Collingwood Insurance Services (U.K.) Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5030949 of 2024-10-31T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Collingwood Insurance Services (U.K.) Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-5030949
Decision date2024-10-31T00:00:00+00:00
FirmCollingwood Insurance Services (U.K.) Limited
ProductMotor insurance
Claim typeService failures generally
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr S complained about a £40 cancellation fee charged by Collingwood Insurance Services when he cancelled his learner driver motor insurance policy after passing his driving test in February 2024. Mr S claimed he was not adequately informed about the fee and did not think it was fair. Collingwood argued the fee was clearly stated in its terms of business agreement, which Mr S was required to acknowledge before proceeding with the online application. The ombudsman found that the cancellation fee was clearly presented in the TOBA, Mr S confirmed his agreement by checking a box, the £40 fee was reasonable, and Mr S had a 14-day cancellation period available. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Collingwood clearly presented the £40 cancellation fee in its TOBA prior to Mr S agreeing to the policy. Mr S confirmed his agreement by checking a box, indicating he had read and understood the terms. The fee of £40 is considered reasonable for an administration charge following policy cancellation. Mr S had a 14-day cancellation period during which he could have cancelled without fees, and if he could not access the documents, he should have contacted Collingwood to request them rather than proceeding without reading the terms.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Collingwood Insurance Services (U.K.) Limited, all decisions144%
Service failures generally, all decisions34,19332%
Motor insurance, all decisions24,10335%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website