Not upheld: General financial advice complaint against USAY BUSINESS LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5356321 of 2025-06-18T00:00:00+00:00. General financial advice complaint against USAY BUSINESS LTD. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5356321 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | USAY BUSINESS LTD |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | General financial advice |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was awarded. |
Summary
Mr A complained about Usay Business Ltd's handling of his private medical insurance renewal, specifically regarding a pricing discrepancy (quoted at £65.18 but renewed at £65.61) and the conduct of an adviser during a telephone call on 11 October 2024. Usay offered £5 compensation for the price difference, which Mr A rejected, and the insurer subsequently reduced the premium to £65.19. Mr A then focused his complaint on the adviser's alleged aggressive conduct during the call, seeking compensation for distress. The ombudsman reviewed the call recording and found that while the adviser became somewhat frustrated, he was not shouting and his conduct was not aggressive. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was awarded.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman acknowledged that Mr A experienced the call as unpleasant and was under pressure due to personal circumstances. However, after listening to the call recording, the ombudsman concluded that the adviser was not shouting and there was nothing aggressive in his conduct. While the adviser became somewhat frustrated, this did not constitute conduct that was significantly wrong. The ombudsman found that Usay was attempting to resolve the issue, albeit not in the way Mr A preferred.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| USAY BUSINESS LTD, all decisions | 8 | 62% |
| General financial advice, all decisions | 4,578 | 36% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 51,105 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website