Not upheld: policy cancellation and unfair treatment complaint against Watford Insurance Company Europe Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Watford Insurance unfairly cancelled his motor insurance policy and recorded the cancellation on a shared database after his car was impounded when driven by his uninsured brother. Mr A claimed the car was taken without his consent and that his decision not to pursue criminal theft charges against his brother should not be interpreted as permission for the car's use. The ombudsman found that Watford's policy terms permitted cancellation when a vehicle is impounded by police, and that it was fair for Watford to require Mr A to establish the car was stolen rather than accept his assurance alone, particularly given his non-cooperation with police. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Watford's policy terms clearly permitted cancellation when a vehicle is impounded by police. The central issue was whether Watford acted fairly and reasonably in exercising this contractual right. The ombudsman concluded it was fair for Watford to require more than Mr A's assurance that the car was stolen, particularly given that Mr A was not pursuing criminal proceedings against his brother for theft. The burden was on Mr A to establish that his car was stolen, not on Watford to prove he gave permission or establish wrongdoing. The ombudsman also found that Watford was entitled to record the cancellation on the shared database under the policy terms.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website