Not upheld: pricing discrepancy and renewal premium increase complaint against Marshmallow Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Marshmallow changed his quotation price from £2,975.10 to £3,155.49 when he purchased the policy, and then substantially increased his renewal premium to £6,222.50 (from an initial quote of £5,776.40). He attributed the renewal increase to a windscreen claim made during the policy year and claimed he was misled about the claim's impact on his No Claims Discount and premium. The ombudsman found that the initial price increase was justified because Mr B selected a higher level of cover than quoted, and that the renewal increase was not unfairly driven by the windscreen claim, which was recorded as non-fault and did not affect his NCD. The ombudsman noted that Mr B was free to reject the renewal and obtain cover elsewhere at a lower premium, and therefore suffered no financial loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the initial price increase was justified because Mr B purchased a different (higher) level of cover than quoted. Regarding the renewal premium increase, the ombudsman reasoned that a windscreen claim of a few hundred pounds would be unlikely to cause a £3,000 premium increase, and that Marshmallow's complex pricing structure involves many factors beyond individual claims. The ombudsman noted that the windscreen claim did not affect Mr B's NCD and that it is not the FOS's role to determine whether premiums charged are fair. The ombudsman also noted that Mr B was free to reject the renewal and obtain cover elsewhere, which he did at a lower premium, meaning he suffered no financial loss.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website