Veste

Not upheld: unfair charges and claim handling complaint against Financial & Legal Insurance Company Ltd

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6113083 of 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00. unfair charges and claim handling complaint against Financial & Legal Insurance Company Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6113083
Decision date2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00
FirmFinancial & Legal Insurance Company Ltd
Productvehicle breakdown insurance
Claim typeunfair charges and claim handling
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr S complained that Financial & Legal unfairly charged him a £120.00 cancellation fee after he found a spare key to start his car and called to enquire about cancellation on 14 November 2025. Although Mr S did not explicitly request cancellation, he indicated his car was running and no longer needed recovery. The ombudsman found that Financial & Legal fairly applied the fee in accordance with the policy terms, as the recovery agent had already started their journey and Mr S's statement that the car was running meant the recovery was no longer necessary. The ombudsman was satisfied that Financial & Legal had adequately disclosed the cancellation fee during the first call. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Financial & Legal's policy terms clearly stated a £120.00 cancellation fee would apply if the customer cancelled recovery or if no fault was found with the vehicle. Although Mr S did not explicitly request cancellation, he had indicated that his car was running and no longer needed recovery, which in substance meant the recovery was no longer necessary. The recovery agent had already started their journey when Mr S made the second call. Financial & Legal had adequately drawn the cancellation fee to Mr S's attention during the first call. Therefore, the application of the fee was fair and in line with the policy terms.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Financial & Legal Insurance Company Ltd, all decisions8440%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website