Veste

Upheld: mis-selling - failure to include legal expenses cover in policy renewal and failure to clearly communicate changes to policy terms complaint against One Sure Insurance Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6296463 of 2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00. mis-selling - failure to include legal expenses cover in policy renewal and failure to clearly communicate changes to policy terms complaint against One Sure Insurance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6296463
Decision date2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00
FirmOne Sure Insurance Limited
Productmotor insurance
Claim typemis-selling - failure to include legal expenses cover in policy renewal and failure to clearly communicate changes to policy terms
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyOne Sure Insurance Limited to pay Mr E £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to include legal expenses cover in the renewal and failure to discuss the change in excess (stated as already paid).

Summary

Mr E complained that One Sure failed to include legal expenses cover when auto-renewing his motor insurance policy in June 2025, despite him having this cover in the previous year. Mr E subsequently found he could not use legal expenses insurance to pursue a claim against his employer after his van was damaged. One Sure accepted it should have included the legal expenses cover but argued Mr E also had a responsibility to check the documents. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding One Sure should have included the cover and drawn attention to its removal, but determined that even if the cover had been included, it would not have provided cover for Mr E's situation because the insurer deemed the accident to be Mr E's fault (leaving the van unlocked), whereas legal expenses cover only applies to non-fault accidents. Compensation of £150 was ordered for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

One Sure accepted it should have included legal expenses cover in the renewal proposal but failed to do so. While Mr E had a responsibility to check documents, he was entitled to expect the same fundamental cover elements as the previous year, and nothing in the documents drew his attention to the removal of legal expenses cover. However, the ombudsman found that even if legal expenses cover had been included, it would not have provided cover for Mr E's situation because the policy only covers non-fault accidents and the insurer determined the accident was Mr E's fault due to leaving the van unlocked. Therefore, Mr E suffered no actual detriment from the missing cover. The ombudsman agreed compensation was warranted for the poor service in not including the cover and not discussing the excess change.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
One Sure Insurance Limited, all decisions7945%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website