Upheld: Service failures generally complaint against esure Insurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6365020 of 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against esure Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6365020 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | esure Insurance Company Limited |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience |
Summary
Mr W made a claim following an accident in July 2022 that was not his fault, caused by a chain collision. esure settled the claim but recorded it as NCD disallowed because it could not recover from any responsible party. When Mr W's other policy came up for renewal in September 2025, the premium increased by over £1,000 (230%), which Mr W attributed to the claim recording. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that while the NCD disallowed recording was correct, esure failed to adequately explain this distinction and could not justify the substantial premium increase, warranting £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While esure correctly recorded the claim as NCD disallowed on CUE (the appropriate recording when recovery is not possible), it failed to clearly explain this distinction to Mr W, allowing him to believe it was recorded as a 'fault' claim. More significantly, esure could not justify the 230% premium increase on Mr W's other policy at renewal, having only suggested a 14% discount would have applied if the claim had been recorded as non-fault. The unjustified premium increase caused Mr W unnecessary distress and inconvenience, leading him to switch insurers.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| esure Insurance Company Limited, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 34,193 | 32% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 24,103 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website