Veste

Not upheld: unfair policy cancellation and charges complaint against Automobile Association Insurance Services Limited (AA)

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6110502 of 2026-04-14T00:00:00+00:00. unfair policy cancellation and charges complaint against Automobile Association Insurance Services Limited (AA). Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6110502
Decision date2026-04-14T00:00:00+00:00
FirmAutomobile Association Insurance Services Limited (AA)
Productmotor insurance
Claim typeunfair policy cancellation and charges
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone - complaint not upheld

Summary

Mr B complained that AA unfairly cancelled his motor insurance policy without allowing him to explain he wanted to add a new car instead. In October 2025, Mr B contacted AA via webchat to cancel his policy after selling his car. When asked if he wanted to replace the vehicle, he said no and requested immediate cancellation. AA charged £45.35 in fees including cancellation and arrangement charges. Mr B later disputed that he had asked for immediate cancellation and claimed he was typing a response when AA cancelled the policy. The ombudsman found that the webchat transcript clearly showed Mr B instructed immediate cancellation with no indication of wanting to add a replacement vehicle, and that the charges were reasonable and clearly disclosed in the policy terms.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the webchat clearly showed Mr B instructed AA to cancel the policy immediately with no indication he wanted to add a replacement vehicle. When specifically asked if he wanted to replace the vehicle, Mr B said no. The ombudsman noted that if Mr B had been prevented from typing a response, he would have expected immediate contact from Mr B to correct the mistake, which did not occur. The charges were reasonable, clearly stated in terms and conditions, and consistent with industry practice.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Automobile Association Insurance Services Limited (AA), all decisions10%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website