Upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Tradex Insurance Company PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that Tradex Insurance refused to renew his motor trade policy in January 2025 citing three open claims, and then again refused to offer cover in January 2026 citing unsatisfactory claims history, despite a prior FOS complaint finding that Tradex had delayed a claim and agreeing to reconsider based on corrected claims history. The ombudsman found that Tradex's 2026 refusal was based on either incorrect data or a spurious reason, as Mr K's correct claims history appeared to fit within Tradex's own stated criteria for cover. While the ombudsman could not require Tradex to offer cover (a commercial decision), it upheld the complaint for unfair treatment and ordered £500 compensation for the upset caused by Tradex's intransigence and apparent bad faith, but declined to order reimbursement for alternative insurance costs.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the FOS cannot interfere with an insurer's commercial decision to refuse cover, Tradex's conduct in 2026 was unfair because it either gave a spurious reason for refusing cover or relied on incorrect claims data that did not actually fit within its own stated criteria. This was particularly problematic given the prior complaint resolution, which appeared to have been agreed to in bad faith. The repeated reliance on the same flawed claims history argument caused Mr K significant frustration and upset, warranting compensation for that unfair treatment, though not for the underlying commercial decision or associated costs.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website