Not upheld: mis-selling of income protection insurance complaint against Just Advice Solutions Limited (JAS)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained that JAS mis-sold him an income protection insurance policy recommended in June 2020, claiming the adviser failed to verify his income, did not explain how the policy worked, and did not properly explain the deferred period. When Mr T made a claim in 2025 after becoming ill, the insurer paid significantly less than the £1500 monthly benefit he expected and alleged he had misrepresented his income as £90,000 rather than the £55,000 shown in JAS's sales paperwork. The ombudsman found that JAS's fact-find showed it had assessed Mr T's needs properly, that Mr T felt the £1500 benefit was sufficient, and that a reasons-why letter provided clear information about the policy terms. Although JAS made an error in submitting £90,000 to the insurer, the ombudsman found this caused no financial loss as Mr T would have received the same policy regardless, and the insurer would have likely reached the same conclusion about misrepresentation given his actual earnings were substantially below £55,000.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that JAS carried out a proper needs assessment based on the fact-find, which showed Mr T felt £1500 monthly benefit was sufficient and that he could support his expenses during the three-month deferred period. The adviser gave clear information about the policy terms in the reasons-why letter. While JAS made an error in stating £90,000 income to the insurer, this did not cause Mr T any loss because he would have received the same policy at the same price regardless, and the insurer would have likely reached the same conclusion about misrepresentation given Mr T's actual earnings were substantially below £55,000.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website