Not upheld: policy cancellation without adequate notice and communication complaint against iGO4

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that iGO4 cancelled his motor insurance policy without giving him due notice, preventing him from responding to requests for validation documents. iGO4 sent multiple communications including a welcome letter, reminder emails on three occasions, a seven-day cancellation notice letter, and text messages to Mr A's registered contact details. Mr A called on the day of cancellation at 5.06pm to provide the documents but claimed his call was dropped and he could not call back before 6pm. The ombudsman found that iGO4 used reasonable and multiple contact methods and that the insurer would not have reinstated the policy regardless of Mr A's actions. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that iGO4 demonstrated it sent communications to Mr A's correct email address, postal address, and mobile number through multiple methods (emails, letters, and text messages). Although Mr A did not receive all messages, the ombudsman applied the principle that if a business can show it sent messages to correct contact details, it cannot be held responsible if the consumer did not receive them. The ombudsman noted that iGO4 used more than one contact method, which is appropriate for serious matters like policy cancellation. Critically, the ombudsman found that even if Mr A had called back before 6pm, the insurer would not have reinstated the policy as it does not accept cancellations being overturned, making any further call irrelevant to the outcome.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website