Not upheld: policy cancellation, communication failure, debt recovery, credit reporting complaint against Ageas Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained that Ageas mishandled his motor insurance policy by cancelling it without proper notice after he made a total loss claim on a 2007 car in September 2025. Mr L claimed Ageas should have sent cancellation notices by email rather than post, and that he intended to add his 2010 car to the policy but was not given adequate opportunity to do so. Mr L alleged the cancellation created an incorrect balance due and caused a credit marker that led to a personal loan being declined. The ombudsman found that although Ageas failed to use Mr L's preferred communication method, he likely received the notices by post, and that Mr L would have been liable for the full year's premium following the total loss claim. The ombudsman also found the 2010 car was not roadworthy (MOT expired) and therefore could not have been added to the policy. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although Ageas failed to send the cancellation notices by Mr L's preferred method of email, Mr L likely received them by post at his registered address. The ombudsman determined that Mr L was in a position where he would have to pay the full year's insurance premium due to the total loss claim, and the 2010 car was not roadworthy (MOT expired 26 October 2025) so could not have been added to the policy. Therefore, Mr L would not have received further benefit from the policy regardless of whether he received the notices. The ombudsman found all charges were fair and reasonable, and that Mr L failed to respond to communications offering the opportunity to discuss payment arrangements before debt collection was instructed. The ombudsman concluded that Ageas acted fairly in cancelling the policy, pursuing the balance, instructing debt collection, and reporting to credit reference agencies.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website