Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Qmetric Group Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Qmetric mis-sold him legal expenses insurance by failing to clearly communicate that employment disputes were not covered under the 'select' policy he held, and by not adequately informing him that an upgraded 'plus' policy was available that would have included employment cover. Mr M claimed he resigned from his job in reliance on having legal cover for an employment dispute, only to discover his claim was not covered. The ombudsman found that Qmetric's documentation clearly listed five specific types of covered disputes (personal injury, consumer disputes, property matters, property damage, and identity theft) with employment disputes notably absent, and that Mr M could have accessed information about the upgraded cover option during the online renewal process. The complaint was not upheld as the information provided was sufficiently clear, fair and not misleading.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the information provided to Mr M was sufficiently clear that employment disputes were not covered. The 'demands and needs' statement explicitly listed five specific types of covered disputes, and employment disputes were not among them. The IPID reinforced this by listing the same five covered events. The ombudsman rejected Mr M's argument that the phrase about 'advice and assistance on any private legal problem' was misleading, noting this referred only to the free legal helpline service, not the scope of covered disputes. Regarding the availability of upgraded 'plus' cover, the ombudsman found that while the 'select' option was pre-selected, Mr M could have accessed information about both options through a button on the renewal page. Even if Qmetric should have made the distinction clearer, the ombudsman found it unlikely this would have changed Mr M's position, as most legal expenses insurers exclude disputes arising before policy inception, and the employment dispute would likely have been considered to arise from events preceding his resignation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website