Veste

Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Broker Experts Limited trading as Car Insurance Experts

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6215389 of 2026-06-25T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Broker Experts Limited trading as Car Insurance Experts. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6215389
Decision date2026-06-25T00:00:00+00:00
FirmBroker Experts Limited trading as Car Insurance Experts
ProductMotor insurance
Claim typeService failures generally
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr H applied for motor insurance through Broker Experts, paid a deposit, but following validation checks, the firm identified that the policy needed amendments including a second address and business use, resulting in a higher premium. Mr H chose not to proceed due to the increased cost and the policy was cancelled with a refund processed within 24 hours. Mr H complained about delays and lost time arranging alternative cover. The ombudsman found that validation checks are a normal part of underwriting, the terms and conditions clearly explained the process, and there was no evidence of unreasonable delay, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that validation checks are a normal and appropriate part of the underwriting process. The information identified during validation legitimately required policy amendments, which Mr H chose not to accept due to cost rather than being declined cover. The terms and conditions clearly explained the validation process and refund procedure, which Mr H accepted before payment. The refund was processed within 24 hours, and Mr H provided no evidence of unreasonable delay in receiving the funds. Broker Experts acted within its policy terms and did not act unfairly.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Broker Experts Limited trading as Car Insurance Experts, all decisions10%
Service failures generally, all decisions34,19332%
Motor insurance, all decisions24,10335%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website