Upheld: misrepresentation handling and inappropriate premium amendment complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6320845 of 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation handling and inappropriate premium amendment complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6320845 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Advantage Insurance Company Limited |
| Product | insurance |
| Claim type | misrepresentation handling and inappropriate premium amendment |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Advantage must: (1) Recalculate the premium based on the original two-year NCD premium without cancellation charges and refund any overpayment with 8% simple interest from date of payment; (2) Amend cancellation records to show Miss C cancelled the policy and provide confirmation email; (3) Verify the revised zero-NCD premium quoted matches what would have been charged in January 2025 and provide evidence; (4) Compare the zero-NCD premium to Miss C's new policy premium and refund the difference with interest (8% simple if paid upfront, or calculated for instalments); (5) Pay £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience within 28 days of acceptance. |
Summary
Miss C complained that Advantage Insurance charged her an additional premium after discovering she did not have a valid two-year NCD, having claimed one based on being a named driver on her previous insurer's policy. Advantage's remedies under CIDRA for the qualifying misrepresentation were limited to either continuing the policy with proportionate claims settlement or cancelling it, not charging additional premium. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Advantage acted inappropriately and must recalculate charges based on the original premium, amend cancellation records, and pay £200 compensation. The ombudsman also criticized Advantage for requesting proof of NCD 10 months into the policy period and for unclear explanatory materials about the policyholder requirement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Miss C failed to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation about her NCD (as required by CIDRA), Advantage's remedies were limited. Under CIDRA, Advantage could either continue the policy with proportionate claims settlement or cancel it, but could not simply amend the premium and charge the difference. The ombudsman noted that Advantage's explanatory materials were unclear about the policyholder requirement, which contributed to Miss C's misunderstanding, though the Demands and Needs notice did provide this information. The ombudsman also criticized Advantage for requesting proof of NCD 10 months into the policy period, which was unnecessarily late and caused Miss C to waste significant time toward earning an NCD.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Advantage Insurance Company Limited, all decisions | 1,756 | 40% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website