Not upheld: PPI mis-selling complaint against Utility Warehouse Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that UW mis-sold him a Bill Protector Insurance policy by failing to clearly define the 'permanent resident' eligibility requirement. Mr A held a visa with leave to remain but not indefinite leave to remain (permanent residency status), and his claim for redundancy was rejected on this basis. Mr A argued that UW should have included a specific policy definition of 'permanent resident' as he interpreted it to mean having a permanent home in the UK, and that the ambiguity contravened FCA requirements for clear communications. The ombudsman found that UW provided clear and unambiguous information about the eligibility criteria through a pop-up box during application and subsequent policy documentation, that 'permanent resident' is a generally understood phrase with a distinct legal meaning, and that in a non-advised sale the applicant bears responsibility for determining their own eligibility. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was awarded.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that UW provided clear and unambiguous information about the permanent residency requirement through multiple channels: a pop-up box during application, an Insurance Product Information Document, and policy terms. The phrase 'permanent resident of the UK' is a generally understood term with a distinct legal meaning in immigration law, separate from property ownership. In a non-advised sale, the duty to ensure eligibility criteria are met rests with the applicant, not the firm, provided the information is clear, fair and not misleading. The ombudsman rejected the argument that a specific policy definition of 'permanent resident' was required, noting that the criteria were laid out in an understandable format and Mr A could have sought clarification if unclear. The ombudsman also noted that the FCA's regulatory role, not the ombudsman's role, is to determine whether policy wording definitions should be included.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website