Not upheld: GAP / warranty insurance mis-selling complaint against MAINTENANCE ASSIST LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that MAL took premiums for a mobile phone insurance policy over five years without his awareness, claiming he and his son never received policy documents due to an incorrect email address on file. MAL refunded £85.22 for premiums taken after the five-year policy period but refused to refund the full amount. The ombudsman found that Mr G had completed the policy inception process, received a customer reference number, and three months later contacted MAL to add another device using that reference number, demonstrating policy awareness. Although MAL likely failed to contact Mr G by phone after an undeliverable email notification, the ombudsman found no evidence of undeliverable renewal documents and noted that Mr G's continuous monthly payments without dispute indicated tacit acceptance of the policy. The complaint was not upheld as Mr G received five years of coverage as stated in the policy terms.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although MAL likely failed to contact Mr G by phone after the undeliverable email notification regarding the additional device, this did not justify refunding all premiums. The key reasoning was: (1) Mr G completed the policy inception process and would have had access to policy documents and a customer reference number; (2) Mr G's subsequent contact to add a device demonstrated awareness and intention to use the policy; (3) there was no evidence of undeliverable messages for the annual renewal documents; (4) Mr G's failure to dispute the monthly payments, despite a reasonable expectation to monitor his bank account, indicated tacit acceptance of the policy continuation; (5) the policy terms clearly stated the five-year automatic renewal period; (6) Mr G received the benefit of coverage for five years, even if his son changed phones; (7) Mr G failed to provide evidence that his son had different phones during the period.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website