Not upheld: careless misrepresentation at policy renewal; unfair policy voiding complaint against Highway Insurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6262935 of 2026-05-21T00:00:00+00:00. careless misrepresentation at policy renewal; unfair policy voiding complaint against Highway Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6262935 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-21T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Highway Insurance Company Limited |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | careless misrepresentation at policy renewal; unfair policy voiding |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman declined to direct Highway to change how it recorded the outcome, despite acknowledging the ongoing impact on Mrs R's insurance record. |
Summary
Mrs R complained that Highway Insurance Company Limited unfairly treated her motor insurance policy as void following renewal on 22 November 2025. Mrs R had committed two speeding offences (SP30s) in April and May 2025 but failed to disclose them at renewal, despite the renewal invitation explicitly asking her to check and correct information about driving convictions. She only disclosed the offences shortly after renewal. Highway treated the policy as void from the renewal date. The ombudsman found that Mrs R's failure to disclose the offences constituted a careless misrepresentation under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, and that this was a qualifying misrepresentation because Highway's evidence confirmed it would not knowingly offer cover to a driver with two recent speeding offences. Accordingly, the ombudsman found that Highway acted fairly in exercising its legal remedy to void the policy and did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied CIDRA, which imposes a duty on consumers to take reasonable care to avoid misrepresentation when taking out or varying insurance contracts. The renewal constituted a variation of the policy. Mrs R made a careless misrepresentation by failing to disclose the two SP30s when the renewal invitation explicitly asked her to check and correct information about driving convictions. This was a qualifying misrepresentation because Highway's evidence confirmed it would not have offered cover to a driver with two recent SP30s. Under CIDRA, where a misrepresentation makes the difference that an insurer would not have offered cover at all, the insurer has the remedy of treating the policy as void. The ombudsman found no unfairness in Highway's application of this remedy.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Highway Insurance Company Limited, all decisions | 214 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website