Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Extracover Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Extracover Limited wrongly informed his employment app that his commercial motor insurance document was fraudulent, resulting in his inability to continue working as a delivery driver. Extracover did not uphold the complaint, and the FOS investigator agreed. Mr A appealed raising multiple points including unjustified delays, conflicting accusations, and communication issues. The ombudsman found that the document did not appear to be authentic and that Extracover's fully automated system made it unlikely they had sent an incorrect document. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding Extracover had acted reasonably, and noted that several of Mr A's points had not been formally raised with Extracover or fell outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that based on the available evidence, the document in question did not appear to be authentic. Extracover's fully automated system with no human interaction made it unlikely they sent an incorrect document. The fact that the employment app needed to authenticate the document with Extracover suggested it was not received directly from Extracover. Therefore, Extracover acted reasonably in advising the app that the document was fraudulent. Several points raised by Mr A were not upheld because they had not been formally raised as complaint points with Extracover first, or fell outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction (such as complaint handling procedures).

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website