DRN-6233716

The complaint Mr L has complained One Insurance Limited voided his motor insurance policy. What happened Mr L took out a new policy underwritten by One Insurance in December 2024. The named driver on Mr L’s policy was involved in an accident in August 2025 and he made a claim. One Insurance found Mr L didn’t disclose the named driver’s two motoring convictions, and they considered this a careless qualifying misrepresentation which entitled them to decline the claim and void his policy from inception. Mr L wasn’t happy with this and brought a complaint to this Service. He acknowledges he made a mistake but said he wasn’t aware of the named driver’s convictions. And he doesn’t think One Insurance were entitled to void the policy. An Investigator looked into what happened and upheld the complaint. She thought One Insurance weren’t entitled to take the action they have and recommended they reinstate the policy and deal with Mr L’s claim. One Insurance didn’t agree. They pointed out it was the named driver that was driving at the time of the accident and the misrepresentation had a direct impact on the policy at the time of the claim. The complaint couldn’t be resolved so it came to me to decide. I wrote a provisional decision partially upholding the complaint, but my recommendations for how to put things right were different to the Investigator’s. The findings in the provisional decision form part of this final decision, so I’ve copied them in below. I also invited any further comments or evidence before I issued a final decision. The provisional decision As ours is an informal service, I’m not going to comment on every point or piece of evidence Mr L and One Insurance sent us. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be key or central to the complaint. But I’d like to reassure both that I have considered everything submitted. One Insurance said Mr L didn’t inform them of the named driver’s motoring convictions when he took out his policy. This would be considered a misrepresentation, and the relevant law is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA). CIDRA requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when taking out a consumer insurance contract (a policy). The standard of care is that of a reasonable consumer. If a consumer fails to do this, the insurer has certain remedies provided the misrepresentation is – what CIDRA describes as – a qualifying one. And for it to be a qualifying misrepresentation the insurer has to show it would have offered the policy on different terms or not at all if the consumer hadn’t made the misrepresentation. CIDRA sets out a number of considerations for deciding whether the consumer failed to take reasonable care. And the remedy available to the insurer under CIDRA depends on whether

-- 1 of 3 --

the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, or careless. When taking out the policy, Mr L was asked if any drivers had any motoring convictions, driving licence endorsements, or fixed penalty points in the last five years. And Mr L answered ‘no’ when the named driver had two convictions and none points on her licence. Mr L accepts he made a mistake when he didn’t disclose the named driver’s convictions. And I’m satisfied this is enough to show he didn’t take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when he gave his answer. I’ve seen One Insurance won’t have offered a policy including the named driver. But I think they will have offered a policy on different terms had he answered correctly, so I’m satisfied it was fair for One Insurance to say Mr L made a qualifying misrepresentation. One Insurance has said they consider the misrepresentation as careless (as opposed to reckless or deliberate) because he wasn’t aware of the named driver’s convictions and there isn’t any evidence of clear disregard from Mr L. I think this is a reasonable stance to take and think it’s fair for One Insurance to consider Mr L’s misrepresentation as careless. Under CIDRA, One Insurance could have continued to provide Mr L insurance, but on the terms they would have offered if the misrepresentation hadn’t happened. In the circumstances, One Insurance would have still insured Mr L, so I don’t think it was fair of them to void the policy. Mr L told me he found insurance elsewhere, so I won’t be directing One Insurance to reinstate the policy. But I will be directing them to write him a letter saying they didn’t void the policy so he can show this to future insurers. Since the named driver was driving the vehicle and One Insurance never would have accepted them on the policy they could have offered Mr L, I’m not going to direct One Insurance to cover the claim. I’ve thought about whether One Insurance should pay any compensation to Mr L, but I won’t be directing them to do so. This is because although I accept there will have been some inconvenience in arranging a new policy, Mr L should take some responsibility for what happened as he didn’t ask the named driver about any convictions they had. One Insurance accepted my provisional decision. Mr L didn’t reply. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I haven’t been provided with anything from Mr L or One Insurance in response to my provisional decision to persuade me to depart from what I’ve said. So, for the reasons set in my provisional decision, I’m directing One Insurance to take the action set out below. My final decision For the reasons above, I uphold this complaint and direct One Insurance Limited to: • Remove any record of the voided policy from internal and external databases. • Write Mr L a letter stating the policy wasn’t voided, and that he doesn’t need to declare it to future insurers. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or

-- 2 of 3 --

reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Andrew Wakatsuki-Robinson Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --