Not upheld: Unknown / needs review complaint against AutoProtect (MBI) Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs J purchased a GAP insurance policy from APL in July 2022 for a vehicle she intended to allow her son to use as a taxi. When she claimed on the policy in 2024, the claim was declined because the vehicle had been used for hire and reward. Mrs J complained that she had informed APL of this intended use and that the policy had been mis-sold. The ombudsman found that the policy documentation clearly stated 'Private Use' and excluded hire and reward vehicles, and that Mrs J had acknowledged reading and accepting these documents. Given the absence of call recordings and the conflicting testimony, the ombudsman applied the balance of probability test and concluded that Mrs J most likely had not informed APL of the intended taxi use, as she had not queried the documented exclusions. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probability test given the absence of call recordings. The key reasoning was that the demands and needs document and IPID summary, which Mrs J acknowledged reading and accepting, clearly stated the vehicle use as 'Private Use' and explicitly excluded vehicles used for hire and reward. Had Mrs J genuinely informed APL of the intended taxi use, the ombudsman would have expected her to query why the documents did not reflect this intention and why the policy specifically excluded such use. The absence of any such query, combined with the documented policy terms, led the ombudsman to conclude that Mrs J most likely did not inform APL of the intended hire and reward use.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website