Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Insurance Factory Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M complained that Lancaster cancelled the wrong car insurance policy. She had two policies with Lancaster for cars B and F. When Mr M called to cancel car B's policy (which had been sold), he provided car B's details during the automation process. However, the agent then confirmed with Mrs M that it was cancelling car F's policy, reading out the make, model and registration details, which Mrs M agreed to. Two months later, Mrs M discovered car F was uninsured. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld because the agent was sufficiently clear about which policy was being cancelled, Mrs M had the opportunity to correct any confusion, and Lancaster sent written confirmation the same day via the online portal.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although Mr M provided details of car B during the automation process, the agent was sufficiently clear when speaking directly with Mrs M, reading out the specific make, model and registration details of car F before proceeding. This gave Mrs M an opportunity to correct the agent if there was confusion. Additionally, Lancaster sent written confirmation on the same day via the online portal, which Mrs M had agreed was her preferred communication method. The ombudsman considered that actual consequences (driving uninsured) did not occur, and that Lancaster had taken reasonable steps to verify the correct policy before cancellation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website