Not upheld: service failure, alleged mis-selling, premium refund dispute, no claims discount entitlement complaint against BISL Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6246467 of 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00. service failure, alleged mis-selling, premium refund dispute, no claims discount entitlement complaint against BISL Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6246467 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | BISL Limited |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | service failure, alleged mis-selling, premium refund dispute, no claims discount entitlement |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. BISL had already waived its cancellation fee (£25.35) and refunded the cost of the unused guaranteed replacement car policy (£32.79) as goodwill gestures. BISL agreed to manually amend Mr A's NCD record to confirm 11 years' NCD. |
Summary
Mr A complained to BISL Limited about his motor insurance policy purchased in May 2025, which he cancelled in November 2025 after the insurer refused to add a family member and declined to provide cover for his new vehicle. Mr A sought a full premium refund, claiming the policy was unusable and mis-sold, and requested compensation for distress and a 12-year NCD entitlement. The ombudsman found that the insurer's refusals were based on underwriting criteria outside BISL's control and that BISL was not expected to disclose potential future rejections at the point of sale. The ombudsman concluded that BISL correctly administered the policy, appropriately handled the premium refund, and reasonably dealt with the NCD matter, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that the insurer's decisions to refuse adding a family member and decline cover for a new vehicle were made by the insurer based on its underwriting criteria and were outside BISL's control. BISL was not expected to be aware of these potential rejections at the point of sale, as mid-term adjustments are subject to insurer approval and based on confidential underwriting criteria. The policy was not mis-sold as it continued to provide the core benefit of cover for the insured vehicle. BISL correctly administered the policy, appropriately applied its terms, and reasonably handled the premium refund and NCD matters.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| BISL Limited, all decisions | 328 | 24% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 23,874 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website