Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited (trading as H. R. Owen Insurance Services Limited)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6368838 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited (trading as H. R. Owen Insurance Services Limited). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6368838 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited (trading as H. R. Owen Insurance Services Limited) |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | Motor insurance, claim handling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr C complained that H R Owen mis-sold him a car insurance policy by not asking whether his vehicle was kept in a garage and by incorrectly telling the insurer it was garaged. When Mr C's vehicle was stolen in March 2024, the insurer declined the claim because the car was not kept in a locked garage as required by the policy endorsement. The ombudsman found that H R Owen's system records indicated the parking location was recorded as 'garaged' during the initial 2021 sale, the broker provided clear information about the garage clause which Mr C did not query, and at the 2022 renewal, H R Owen sent a confirmation email giving Mr C opportunity to correct the information. The complaint was not upheld because the ombudsman found it most likely the broker did ask about parking location and Mr C's failure to respond to the confirmation email was the fundamental reason for the situation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found it most likely that H R Owen's call handler asked about the parking location during the 2021 telephone call and that Mr C indicated the car was garaged, as evidenced by the system record. The follow-up email clearly set out the garage clause, which Mr C did not query. At the 2022 renewal, H R Owen sent a confirmation email asking Mr C to verify the parking location, giving him a reasonable opportunity to correct the information. Although H R Owen should have followed up the unanswered email, Mr C's failure to respond was the fundamental reason he found himself in this situation. The ombudsman could not determine with certainty what was discussed in the 2022 call due to lack of recording, but Mr C had adequate opportunity to correct the information via the email.
How this compares
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website