Partially upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Clear Insurance Management Limited (CIML)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that his insurance broker CIML failed to act in his best interests by not conducting fair market analysis at each renewal and not clearly explaining why they were not remarketing his policy. CIML's terms stated they would conduct fair market analysis 'unless we specifically state otherwise' and they had advised Mr H when this hadn't been done. The ombudsman found CIML could have communicated their reasons more clearly but was satisfied the recommended policies were suitable for Mr H's needs, particularly given his historic subsidence damage which limited available options. Although Mr H subsequently found cheaper alternative cover, the ombudsman found material differences in the policies and no evidence that CIML's recommendations resulted in financial loss. The complaint was partially upheld with £150 compensation awarded for the lack of clear communication.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while CIML's role extends beyond fair market analysis to include understanding client needs, assessing risks, and recommending suitable solutions, they failed to clearly communicate their reasons for not remarketing Mr H's policy at each renewal. Although CIML's terms stated market analysis would be done 'unless we specifically state otherwise' and they advised when this hadn't been done, the communication could have been clearer. However, the ombudsman was satisfied that the policies recommended were suitable for Mr H's needs based on his circumstances and the specialist cover required for historic subsidence. The alternative quotations Mr H obtained contained material differences and lacked bespoke features of CIML's recommended policy. No evidence supported Mr H's claim of financial loss from inflated premiums, as CIML had no control over premium setting and had negotiated reductions on multiple occasions. The 2023 conversation showed Mr H was satisfied with the service at that time.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website