Not upheld: fraud marker application; document verification complaint against Marshmallow Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained that Marshmallow Insurance Limited unfairly applied a CIFAS fraud marker when it cancelled his car insurance policy after being unable to verify his claimed No Claims history. Mr P had provided a document obtained from a broker via WhatsApp, which the previous insurer stated it had not produced. The ombudsman found that Marshmallow had sufficient evidence to fairly apply the marker, including the failed verification, insecure transmission method, document format changes, deleted messages, and Mr P's financial incentive to claim unearned No Claims years. Although Mr P claimed to believe the document was legitimate, the ombudsman determined the totality of circumstances met the required standard of proof and upheld Marshmallow's decision not to remove the marker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that while an insurer cannot apply a CIFAS marker based on suspicion alone, Marshmallow had sufficient evidence meeting the required standard of proof. The evidence included: the inability to verify the document with the previous insurer, the insecure transmission method via WhatsApp, the document changing format during conversations, deleted messages in the thread, and Mr P's financial incentive to claim unearned No Claims years. Although Mr P claimed to believe the document was legitimate, the totality of circumstances provided reasonable grounds for the marker application in accordance with the policy terms.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website