Upheld: service failure - poor call handling, failure to action cancellation requests, inadequate complaint responses complaint against HERTS INSURANCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6235570 of 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00. service failure - poor call handling, failure to action cancellation requests, inadequate complaint responses complaint against HERTS INSURANCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6235570 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HERTS INSURANCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | service failure - poor call handling, failure to action cancellation requests, inadequate complaint responses |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Pay £100 in total compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by poor service level, as already agreed. |
Summary
Mr Y complained about poor service from Herts Insurance Consultants Limited after taking out a motor insurance policy. He experienced seven failed attempts to provide validation information due to repeated call terminations and unexplained transfers, and his cancellation requests were not acted upon promptly. Although Herts eventually offered cancellation without charges outside the cooling-off period (meaning Mr Y suffered no financial loss), the ombudsman found the service failures caused avoidable frustration and wasted time. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and confirmed that Herts' offer of £100 compensation was fair and reasonable, rejecting Mr Y's request for a higher amount.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Herts made errors in its service delivery, including repeated call terminations, unexplained transfers, and failure to act on cancellation requests. However, Herts restored Mr Y's position by eventually offering cancellation without charges outside the cooling-off period, meaning Mr Y suffered no financial loss. The ombudsman considered that £100 compensation was fair and reasonable for the frustration and wasted time caused by these repeated small errors, in keeping with FOS published guidance. The ombudsman rejected Mr Y's other concerns as either not substantiated (age calculation, system issues) or outside the scope of FOS jurisdiction (complaint handling per se).
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HERTS INSURANCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 23,874 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website