Not upheld: policy cancellation for non-compliance with terms complaint against Davies MGA Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6275991 of 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00. policy cancellation for non-compliance with terms complaint against Davies MGA Services Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6275991 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Davies MGA Services Limited |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | policy cancellation for non-compliance with terms |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr S1 complained that Davies MGA Services Limited unfairly cancelled his telematics motor insurance policy. The policy required all drivers to download the app and log in using their own email addresses. Mr S1 failed to do this correctly, instead logging in with his father Mr S2's email address. Davies sent three email reminders and two text message prompts warning of possible cancellation before cancelling the policy after five days. The ombudsman found Davies acted fairly and in accordance with the policy terms, as Mr S1 had not complied with the setup requirements and Davies provided adequate notice through multiple communication channels.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Davies fairly cancelled the policy because Mr S1 failed to comply with the explicit policy requirement to log into the app using his own email address. Davies provided adequate warning through three emails and two text messages over a five-day period, which exceeded the policy's notification requirements. The ombudsman rejected the argument that Davies should have telephoned Mr S1, as the policy terms only required notification via email and Davies complied with this. The ombudsman could not consider the increased premium on the new policy as this was set by underwriters, not Davies.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Davies MGA Services Limited, all decisions | 6 | 50% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website