Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against U Drive Cover Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained about U Drive Cover Ltd's customer service following the cancellation of his motor insurance policy. U Drive discovered that Mr M had failed to declare a second conviction when taking out the policy and contacted him by phone to inform him that the conviction would need to be added or the policy would be cancelled within 24 hours. Mr M stated he was driving and could not discuss the matter, but the policy was ultimately cancelled six days later. Mr M claimed the representatives were rude, rushed him, and did not give him adequate time to investigate. The ombudsman found that U Drive acted reasonably in contacting Mr M about the serious matter of non-disclosure, that the representatives' conduct was professional and not aggressive, and that Mr M had the opportunity to call back to resolve matters but chose not to do so. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found it was reasonable for U Drive to contact Mr M about the undisclosed conviction. Although Mr M stated he was driving and could not discuss matters, U Drive's representative clearly communicated the seriousness of the issue and gave him 24 hours notice. The ombudsman noted that Mr M had the opportunity to call back when not driving but chose not to do so. The policy was not cancelled until six days later, providing additional time. The ombudsman concluded that U Drive's representatives were insistent but not aggressive, and that their conduct was reasonable and professional given the importance of the matter.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website