Not upheld: unfair policy cancellation decision complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that Advantage Insurance unfairly cancelled his telematics motor insurance policy after only 10 days of data collection, without giving him adequate time to improve his driving score. Advantage's policy terms permitted cancellation when the score fell to 30 or below, and Mr K's score had fallen below this threshold and did not improve consistently after a courtesy warning. The ombudsman found that while Advantage could have given more time to improve, this would not have altered the outcome given the lack of consistent improvement. The 20-day cancellation notice provided meaningful opportunity for Mr K to arrange alternative cover, which he did, avoiding an insurer-recorded cancellation. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Advantage acted within its contractual rights as the policy terms explicitly allowed cancellation when a score fell to 30 or below. While the ombudsman acknowledged it would have been fair to give Mr K additional time to improve his score, this would not have altered the outcome because his score did not improve consistently after the warning. The 20-day notice period provided procedural fairness and a meaningful opportunity for Mr K to protect his position by securing alternative insurance, which he successfully did. The short timeframe between installation and cancellation, while noted, did not make the decision unfair as the policy contained no minimum monitoring period requirement.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website