Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Esure Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained that Esure Services Limited failed to arrange his car insurance policy with correct registration details, leaving his car uninsured for two months from November 2024 to February 2025. Mr F argued that Esure should have validated the registration details against the Motor Insurance Bureau and DVLA, and provided a screenshot claiming he submitted correct details to the comparison website. The ombudsman found that Esure acted reasonably by relying on information received from the comparison website and that the onus was on Mr F to check the policy documents for accuracy when received. Esure had provided explicit warnings about the importance of verification and the consequences of errors. The ombudsman found no evidence that Esure changed the registration details and declined to uphold the complaint or award compensation for distress.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Esure acted reasonably by relying on information received from the comparison website and that businesses are entitled to make their own commercial decisions regarding validation checks. The ombudsman emphasised that the onus is on customers to review policy documents upon receipt to verify accuracy. Esure provided clear warnings about the importance of checking details and the consequences of errors. There was no evidence that Esure changed the registration details from correct to incorrect information. The ombudsman found the agent handled the subsequent call professionally and appropriately.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website