Not upheld: misleading information and alleged breach of Consumer Duty in policy amendment complaint against One Call Insurance Services Limited (trading as One Click)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained that One Call misled him into believing a car change on his motor insurance policy constituted a new policy sale rather than an amendment, and that he should have received a refund for the original policy. One Call charged him £321.11 for the car change in addition to his initial £335.54 premium. The ombudsman found that the amendment was clearly presented as such in the letter heading and documentation, the policy term remained unchanged (ending 16 October 2026 rather than 11 months later), and the additional charge was a fair pro rata adjustment for the new car's increased risk for the remaining policy term. The ombudsman calculated that total charges of £656 aligned with the underwriter's calculated annual premium of £640.17, with the difference attributable to administration charges and discounts. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr P's interpretation that a new policy had been sold was incorrect. The evidence clearly showed this was an amendment to an existing policy: the policy end date remained 16 October 2026 (not 11 months later), the letter was headed 'amendment', and the documentation clearly stated it related to a change rather than a new policy. The ombudsman calculated that the total charges (£656) were reasonable and aligned with the underwriter's pro rata premium for both vehicles over the 12-month period (£640.17), with the difference accounted for by administration charges and discounts. The portal and documents were sufficiently clear and not misleading. The ombudsman rejected the argument that a goodwill gesture indicated unfairness, noting businesses often make such gestures for customer retention reasons.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website