Not upheld: mis-selling complaint against ITC Compliance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs W complained that ITC mis-sold her a GAP insurance policy by leading her to believe it would cover her for the full five-year duration of her vehicle finance agreement, when in fact the 'return to invoice' element only lasted 36 months. When her car was written off in 2024, ITC declined her claim as the cover had expired and there was no outstanding finance shortfall. Mrs W claimed she had not received policy documents at the time of sale and was unaware of the limitation. The ombudsman found that the 36-month duration was clearly set out in multiple documents provided at the point of sale, and was satisfied Mrs W had received them. The ombudsman concluded the policy was not mis-sold and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy duration was clearly and consistently set out across multiple documents provided at the point of sale. Although Mrs W claimed she did not receive the documents, the ombudsman was satisfied on balance that ITC had sent them. The ombudsman also noted that even if Mrs W had not been explicitly told about the 36-month limitation on the 'return to invoice' element, she clearly desired GAP protection and would likely have purchased the policy anyway. Furthermore, since the 'return to invoice' cover had expired by the time of the claim and there was no outstanding finance shortfall, Mrs W had not been put in a materially different position.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website