Not upheld: mis-selling - failure to disclose policy exclusions complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Advantage Insurance mis-sold his motor insurance policy by not including windscreen cover on one car in his multi-car policy, while the second car did have such cover. The sale was non-advised, conducted via a price comparison website in October 2025. The ombudsman found that Advantage had clearly and prominently displayed the absence of windscreen cover in the sales journey, policy documents, and IPID, and that Mr H had actively selected different comprehensive policies for each car. The complaint was not upheld as Advance had fulfilled its duty to provide clear information under a non-advised sale.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under a non-advised sale, the insurer's duty is to provide clear, fair and non-misleading information so the customer can make an informed choice, with the customer responsible for ensuring suitability. The ombudsman found that the sales journey and policy documents made it sufficiently clear that windscreen cover was not included for the car in question, with this information prominently displayed. The evidence showed Mr H actively selected a different comprehensive policy for the second car that did include windscreen cover, and was informed that moving to a multi-car account did not impact the chosen level of cover. Therefore, it would not be fair to hold Advantage responsible for Mr H's assumptions about comprehensive policies.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website