Not upheld: no claims discount mismanagement and policy terms clarity complaint against Tesco Underwriting Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6213799 of 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00. no claims discount mismanagement and policy terms clarity complaint against Tesco Underwriting Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6213799 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Tesco Underwriting Limited |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | no claims discount mismanagement and policy terms clarity |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Tesco should pay Mr E £50 compensation for the minor service issue (failure to arrange a callback), if not already paid. |
Summary
Mr E complained that Tesco Underwriting Limited mismanaged his no claims discount by failing to recognise his 16 years of claims-free driving and refusing to confirm a longer NCD period to his new insurer, resulting in higher premiums. Tesco's policy provided a maximum of 9 years NCD, which was reduced to 3 years following a fault claim. The ombudsman found that Tesco's policy terms were clearly communicated and not unfair, and that Mr E accepted these terms by taking out the policy. The complaint was not upheld, although Tesco's £50 compensation offer for a minor service issue (failure to arrange a callback) was accepted as reasonable.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Tesco's maximum NCD period of 9 years is common industry practice and not necessarily unfair. The policy documentation clearly communicated the maximum NCD period, that it was not protected, and how it would be reduced following a claim. Mr E accepted these terms by taking out the policy. While the ombudsman acknowledged Mr E's frustration, the policy terms were clear, not unusual, and it was for Mr E to decide whether to accept them. The ombudsman did not require additional transparency warnings beyond what was already provided.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Tesco Underwriting Limited, all decisions | 742 | 40% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website