Not upheld: policy documentation clarity and alleged pressure to purchase additional cover complaint against RAC Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6325708 of 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00. policy documentation clarity and alleged pressure to purchase additional cover complaint against RAC Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6325708 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | RAC Financial Services Limited |
| Product | motor breakdown insurance |
| Claim type | policy documentation clarity and alleged pressure to purchase additional cover |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint and determined RAC should do nothing further. RAC had already refunded the £15.50 business cover charge and offered £35 as a goodwill gesture (which was rejected). |
Summary
Mr P complained that RAC failed to clearly communicate that his personal breakdown policy did not cover business use, and that he was pressured into purchasing additional business cover at an inflated price during an August 2025 breakdown in a work van. Mr P also complained about delay in roadside recovery. The ombudsman found the business use exclusion was clearly stated in renewal documentation from 2019 onwards and that RAC provided evidence it was excluded from policy inception in 2016. The ombudsman rejected the pressure claim, finding RAC appropriately offered emergency assistance with surcharges, and noted the cheaper online option was not comparable as it could not cover an already-occurring event. The ombudsman also found the roadside recovery complaint was outside FOS jurisdiction as RAC qualifies for exemption under the Regulated Activities Order. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that business use exclusion was clearly stated in the IPID documentation provided at every renewal from 2019 onwards, and RAC provided evidence it was excluded from policy inception in 2016. Mr P had responsibility to review his renewal documentation annually and notify RAC of changes in circumstances. The ombudsman rejected the claim of pressure, noting that Mr P was in a breakdown situation requiring immediate assistance, and RAC appropriately offered help with a surcharge as consumers cannot purchase cover for an event already occurring. The ombudsman noted the cheaper online option was not comparable as it could not be purchased during an active breakdown claim. The ombudsman also found that the complaint about delay in roadside recovery was outside FOS jurisdiction as RAC meets the exemption criteria under the Regulated Activities Order for roadside assistance providers.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| RAC Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 7 | 0% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website