Not upheld: customer service failure - failure to respond to enquiries complaint against UK Insurance Limited (UKI)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6235528 of 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00. customer service failure - failure to respond to enquiries complaint against UK Insurance Limited (UKI). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6235528 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | UK Insurance Limited (UKI) |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | customer service failure - failure to respond to enquiries |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No further action required. UKI's £200 compensation payment already made is deemed sufficient. |
Summary
Mr S complained about how UKI refunded his £200 motor insurance excess following a claim settled in his favour in April 2022. Although UKI sent the refund by cheque in September 2025 with accompanying correspondence explaining the payment, Mr S's subsequent emails asking for clarification went unanswered for approximately three months. UKI acknowledged the service failure and paid £200 compensation. The ombudsman found this compensation adequate and did not uphold the complaint, as the explanation had been clearly provided in writing and the compensation reasonably addressed the frustration caused by the delayed response.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that UKI had clearly explained the £200 refund in separate correspondence sent to Mr S, regardless of whether he received it or connected it with the cheque. Although UKI failed to respond to Mr S's subsequent enquiry emails, the £200 compensation they paid was reasonable and proportionate for this service failure. The ombudsman was satisfied that UKI had taken appropriate steps to refund the excess and that their compensation adequately addressed the frustration caused by the delayed response.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| UK Insurance Limited (UKI), all decisions | 9 | 11% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 23,874 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website