Partially upheld: claim settlement calculation error, misrepresentation handling, service delays, valuation dispute complaint against One Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6244329 of 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00. claim settlement calculation error, misrepresentation handling, service delays, valuation dispute complaint against One Insurance Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6244329 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | One Insurance Limited |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | claim settlement calculation error, misrepresentation handling, service delays, valuation dispute |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | One Insurance Limited must: (1) settle the claim based on 84% proportionate reduction (not 82%); (2) pay 8% simple interest on the difference between the 82% and 84% settlement amounts (after excess deductions) from the date the 82% offer was made until payment in full; (3) consider any travel costs Mr A can evidence with receipts or supporting documentation. |
Summary
Mr A claimed on his motor insurance policy following a total loss collision in September 2025. One Insurance valued the car at £16,016 and applied an 82% proportionate settlement reduction due to Mr A's failure to disclose an SP30 motoring conviction from February 2022. Mr A disputed the valuation, the settlement reduction, and the level of compensation for service delays and distress caused by being without transport due to his ill-health. The ombudsman found the valuation reasonable but upheld the complaint regarding the settlement calculation, requiring One Insurance to pay 84% instead of 82% with 8% interest on the difference, while finding the £400 service compensation fair.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that One Insurance's valuation of £16,016 was reasonable as it was close to the highest trade guide valuation and would allow Mr A to purchase a replacement vehicle, satisfying the indemnity principle. The total loss decision was reasonable given the potential for further underside damage. However, One Insurance made a calculation error in applying the proportionate reduction for misrepresentation at 82% when it should have been 84% based on the underwriting team's own information. The misrepresentation was qualifying and careless (not deliberate), justifying a proportionate reduction under CIDRA. Regarding service, while there were avoidable delays, these were partly attributable to incorrect DVLA information and policy terms limiting courtesy car provision. The £400 compensation was found fair given the circumstances and factors outside One Insurance's control.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| One Insurance Limited, all decisions | 396 | 63% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website