Not upheld: automatic renewal and lack of consent complaint against One Call Insurance Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6243756 of 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00. automatic renewal and lack of consent complaint against One Call Insurance Services Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6243756 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | One Call Insurance Services Limited |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | automatic renewal and lack of consent |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman stated 'So I'm not asking it to do anything more.' |
Summary
Mr K complained that One Call unfairly automatically renewed his motor insurance policy as a Platinum club member without his consent. One Call had included automatic renewal in the original policy terms and sent renewal documents 21 days before each renewal date by post, email, and online portal, clearly explaining the Platinum club membership, costs, alternative options, and methods to opt out or cancel. The ombudsman found that automatic renewal is permitted under FCA regulations when proper notice is given, that One Call provided adequate notice and clear opt-out instructions through multiple channels, and that Mr K had opportunities to cancel but did not do so. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman concluded One Call acted fairly and in accordance with its terms of business and applicable regulations.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that automatic renewal is a permitted activity under FCA regulations provided proper notice is given. One Call provided Mr K with clear information about automatic renewal in its original Terms of Business, sent renewal documents 21 days before each renewal date through multiple channels, explained the Platinum club membership benefits and costs, offered alternative options (including a more expensive traditional 12-month policy), and provided multiple methods to opt out or cancel. The ombudsman noted that Mr K had a legal duty to maintain continuous insurance under CIE regulations and had the opportunity to cancel when he contacted One Call in December 2022 but did not do so. The ombudsman concluded One Call acted within regulations and in line with its terms of business.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| One Call Insurance Services Limited, all decisions | 223 | 48% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website