UK Insurance Limited · DRN-6017397

The complaint Mr P complained about U K Insurance Limited’s (“UKI”) poor administration of his motor insurance policy and the treatment he received from its staff. What happened Mr P said he added temporary insurance for another car onto his existing policy on 1 March 2025. He paid for the cover, but two days later noticed the payment had been returned. Mr P said this was because of UKI’s error. He said he was eventually able to get the temporary cover he needed. But when trying to do so he received poor service when a call back he was promised didn’t materialise. Mr P explained that he obtained temporary insurance cover again in August 2025. However, the incorrect registration was used for this vehicle. Mr P said he was pulled over by the police because of this and was concerned that he could be fined or locked up. When he asked for a quote to insure this car permanently Mr P was told that UKI would not offer cover. Mr P didn’t think he’d been treated fairly and felt discriminated against because of his nationality. So, he complained to UKI. UKI provided two separate responses. In the first it acknowledged it was to blame that the payment wasn’t taken in March 2025 for the temporary cover. The business said it’s agent had promised to call Mr P back when he called on 4 March. Because of its error with the payment, and for not calling him as promised UKI sent Mr P £50 compensation. In its second response UKI told Mr P that it had listened to the call when he added the temporary cover on 20 August 2025. It said the registration was recorded correctly based on the information Mr P gave. When it was made aware this wasn’t correct it amended the policy on 24 August. UKI paid Mr P £100 compensation as it acknowledged its agent hadn’t provided good service over the phone. It said it would ensure feedback was provided. However, the business maintained that it could not provide permanent cover for the vehicle Mr P had insured on a temporary basis. Mr P didn’t think he’d been treated fairly by UKI and referred the matter to our service. UKI then contacted us to say it had made a mistake. It said it could have offered Mr P a quote for the permanent cover he’d requested. It offered to now provide a quote and pay any cancellation fees should Mr P want to switch from his current provider. It said it would also pay him £200 compensation. We put this offer to Mr P. But he didn’t accept and asked for us to continue with our investigation. One of our investigator’s looked into Mr P’s complaint, which he upheld. He said it was appropriate that UKI confirmed indemnity was in place in March 2025, given it had made an error. He didn’t think UKI was at fault for the second incident when Mr P gave the wrong registration for his car. But he did think compensation was appropriate for the poorly handled call he’d complained about. Our investigator didn’t identify any unfair treatment relating to Mr Ps nationality. However, he said UKI should pay Mr P an additional £200 compensation

-- 1 of 4 --

on top of the £150 it had already paid, to acknowledge the poor service and mistakes. UKI accepted the outcome but did raise a concern that our investigator hadn’t mentioned the error it made with the declined insurance quote. It said it hadn’t received information that Mr P’s mental health had been affected. And queried why he had requested a permanent quote if UKI had affected his health in this way. Mr P didn’t accept our investigator’s findings and requested a decision from an ombudsman. It has been passed to me to decide. 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. Having done so I’m upholding Mr P’s complaint. But I won’t ask UKI to do more than our investigator proposed. I’m sorry to disappoint him, but I’ll explain why I think my decision is fair. There is no dispute from UKI that it was at fault for the payment error that occurred in March 2025. This led to Mr P’s temporary cover being cancelled. The business confirmed this was due to a system error. It has also made clear that Mr P will have had the benefit of cover during this period, given it was at fault. It’s correct that UKI confirmed Mr P was indemnified for any loss when his temporary cover should have been in place. I note it hasn’t requested payment for this, which I think is fair in these circumstances. The business should have called Mr P when it agreed to do so. Because it didn’t, this caused him frustration particularly given UKI’s previous error. So, I think it was fair that compensation was offered. I’ve listened to the call recording from 20 August 2025. This is when Mr P added temporary cover to his policy, again. The registration Mr P confirmed to the call handler wasn’t the correct registration for his car. The first letter was different. The call handler read the registration out phonetically and Mr P again confirmed this was correct. Based on this evidence it was Mr P’s mistake that resulted in the wrong registration being used for his temporary cover. I’m sorry to hear that Mr P was distressed when he was pulled over by the police. But this wasn’t UKI’s fault. I’ve listened to the call when Mr P contacted UKI on 24 August 2025. This was after he’d been pulled over. UKI amended the registration for the temporary cover and a complaint was logged. The call starts off with Mr P clearly frustrated with the lack of temporary cover. I think the call handler could have dealt with the situation better. Mr P’s frustration came across in the call. But instead of de-escalating and showing empathy, the call handler took an argumentative tone. Around six minutes into the call Mr P asked to speak to a supervisor. The call handler arranged for this to happen, and the necessary action was taken to amend the cover. This part of the call was handled well. I can understand that Mr P was upset by the agent he initially spoke to. Especially as he’d

-- 2 of 4 --

already experienced an issue in March 2025 with his temporary cover. The call should have been handled better and it’s reasonable that UKI provided feedback and offered compensation. But to be clear, Mr P was responsible for the error with the vehicle registration. UKI has confirmed it made a mistake. This is when it told Mr P it could not offer him permanent cover for the car he’d previously added to his policy on a temporary basis. To put this right, I think it’s fair that it has now offered to provide a quote. If Mr P wants to accept the quote then UKI should pay the cancellation fees for leaving any 12-month insurance policy he currently has in place. I’ve thought about the impact all of this had on Mr P. I note his comments that his mental health has suffered. He attributes this to the contact with the police, the way he was spoken to on the phone, the errors with this temporary cover, and the lack of a permanent quote. I’m sorry to hear about the impact on Mr P’s mental wellbeing. I accept UKI is responsible for the payment issue with the temporary cover. Its agent should have handled the call better. And UKI should have offered a quote, as it has shown that its underwriting criteria would allow this. To acknowledge the upset and inconvenience this caused I think a total compensation payment for £350 is fair. But UKI isn’t responsible that the wrong registration that was recorded for the temporary cover. This means it wasn’t responsible for the police involvement. I’ve thought about Mr P’s comments that he was discriminated against because his nationality isn’t British. Discrimination is defined under the Equality Act 2010 with regards to protected characteristics. Race is one of these, which incorporates a person’s nationality. The call handler that Mr P complained about should have handled the call better. But I didn’t hear anything that makes me think he was treated unfairly or differently because of his nationality. The business has explained how an error occurred with its systems relating to the payment for temporary cover. As well as the declined quote. But I’m satisfied these were genuine errors as opposed to the business treating Mr P differently because of his nationality. So, I’m not upholding this part of his complaint. I acknowledge UKI’s comments that it didn’t have information relating to the impact on Mr P’s mental health. But he did mention this during the call on 24 August 2025. So, I think UKI was reasonably aware of this point. Having considered all of this I don’t think UKI treated Mr P fairly regarding the error with the payment, the lack of a call back, the poorly handled call, and the wrong information it gave about providing a quote. To put this right UKI should pay Mr P a total of £350 compensation, provide a quote for cover on request and pay any cancellation fees for ending an existing 12- month policy early. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. U K Insurance Limited should: • pay Mr P a total of £350 compensation; • provide a quote for permanent cover for the vehicle previously insured on a temporary basis and refund any cancellation fees associated with cancelling a 12-month policy to allow him to accept UKI’s quote.

-- 3 of 4 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --