Not upheld: PPI mis-selling complaint against Hippo Vehicle Solutions Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs W complained that HVSL mis-sold her a GAP insurance policy, arguing it did not offer fair value, that she was not given a two-day cooling-off period, and that HVSL failed to disclose commission. The ombudsman found the recommendation was suitable based on Mrs W's needs (she had no alternative funds to cover a shortfall if her vehicle was deemed a total loss), that HVSL complied with ICOBS requirements by providing key information and allowing at least two clear days before sale conclusion as evidenced by Mrs W's signed declaration, and that commission disclosure rules did not apply at the time of the August 2017 sale. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that HVSL's recommendation was suitable based on Mrs W's expressed need for GAP cover (she answered 'No' to having alternative funds). The firm complied with ICOBS requirements by providing key information and allowing at least two clear days before sale conclusion, as evidenced by Mrs W's signed declaration. Regarding commission disclosure, ICOBS 4.3 R did not apply as it came into force in October 2018, over a year after the August 2017 sale. The ombudsman noted that commission disclosure is standard practice in insurance brokerage and Mrs W was informed the purchase was optional, so she could have shopped around. The ombudsman rejected arguments based on Consumer Duty (which applies only from 2023/2024) and section 140A CCA (which applies to creditor-debtor relationships, not insurance brokers).

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website