Not upheld: mis-selling and unfair refusal of cover; disputed outstanding premium balance complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs A purchased a motor insurance policy online in July 2025 and subsequently added her son Mr A as a temporary driver for 30-day periods in August, September, and October 2025. When Mr A passed his driving test in November 2025, Admiral refused to continue insuring him and claimed Mrs A owed an outstanding balance of £648. Mrs A complained that the policy was mis-sold and the charges were unfair. The ombudsman found no mis-selling because the policy was sold on a non-advised basis, Mr A was not mentioned at sale, and was only added temporarily, so Admiral could not have anticipated permanent cover would be needed after he passed his test. The refusal to cover Mr A was a legitimate commercial decision based on changed risk profile. The outstanding balance of £549.21 was fairly calculated as Mrs A had only paid £389.54 of the £938.75 total premium owed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no mis-selling because: (1) the policy was sold on a non-advised basis; (2) Mr A was not mentioned at the point of sale; (3) when added, he was added on a temporary basis only; and (4) Admiral could not have known Mrs A would want permanent cover for him after passing his test. The refusal to cover Mr A after passing his test was a legitimate commercial decision based on changed risk profile, as learner drivers require supervision but full licence holders do not. The outstanding balance calculation was fair as Mrs A had not paid the full premium for the cover provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website