Advantage Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6166794

The complaint Mr A complains that Advantage Insurance Company Limited cancelled his motor insurance policy. Reference to Advantage includes its agents. What happened Mr A bought a telematics car insurance policy underwritten by Advantage. Unfortunately, on 13 July 2025, Mr A’s car was stolen. He made a claim against his policy the same day and Advantage excluded Mr A from notifications about his driving data until 13 August 2025. On 14 July 2025, Advantage contacted Mr A about missing driving data. On 1 August 2025, Mr A bought a new car at auction. On 14 August 2025, Advantage contacted Mr A again about missing driving data. On 15 August 2025, Mr A gave Advantage details of his new car and insured it under his existing policy. Advantage charged him £114.27, which was an additional premium and a fee of £20. On 28 August 2025, Advantage contacted Mr A and said it may have to cancel his policy as there was a problem with his driving data. On 11 September 2025, Advantage cancelled Mr A’s policy. Mr A complained to Advantage about that. Advantage said it had followed the correct cancellation process but it offered to refund £40 in fees. Mr A did not accept that and pursued his complaint. Mr A says Advantage has not considered the unusual circumstances of his case, which involves the theft and subsequent replacement of his car. He says Advantage sent him warning notices about data after it knew his original car had been stolen and before his new car was useable. Therefore, he considered its automated warnings were system errors. Mr A says that when he told Advantage about his new car, he said he would start driving it when repair work was completed and would tell Advantage if the telematics were compromised. He says he was on holiday with limited access to e-mail when Advantage sent the notice of cancellation on 28 August 2025. Mr A says that his new car required substantial repairs which were not completed until 5 September 2025, and he was not able to drive it until then. Mr A says when he started driving his new car on 5 September 2025, he believed data was recording correctly. Mr A says when he contacted Advantage about the cancellation, it said it could not override it. He says he was not responsible for the lapse in data. Mr A says the cancellation has cost him £1,500, as the theft of his original car affected the calculation of the premium refund and he had to buy a new policy at a higher premium. He also complains about the complaints process. Mr A wants Advantage to acknowledge that it made an error in cancelling his policy and to compensate him for his financial loss. One of our Investigators looked at what had happened. He did not think that Advantage had acted unfairly in cancelling Mr A’s policy. The Investigator said that when Mr A told Advantage about his new car, he did not say it would be off road or that he would be away, so he would not be driving for a period of time. He said as Mr A made a claim against the policy, Advantage could retain the premium but he thought Advantage should refund the

-- 1 of 3 --

additional premium and fees of £114.27, with interest, and also pay the £40 it had offered in its final response to Mr A. Advantage accepted the Investigator’s recommendation but Mr A did not. He said the Investigator had not taken into account that on 14 July 2025 and 14 August 2025, Advantage sent him warnings about missing data when it knew about the theft of his original car. Mr A said that led him to believe Advantage’s subsequent warning about missing data was a system error. He said he believed the transfer of data was working correctly from 5 September 2025. Mr A says that when he contacted Advantage about the cancellation it said it tried to override it but could not do so. He says that shows the cancellation was the result of a technical fault, rather than a failure on his part. He says Advantage’s handling of the matter has caused him distress and inconvenience. He wants Advantage to refund his premium. The Investigator considered what Mr A said but did not change his view. Mr A asked that an Ombudsman consider his complaint, so it was 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. Mr A has expressed concern about how Advantage handled his complaint. Our service can only consider complaints about financial services. So, I cannot consider the additional points Mr A has raised about the handling of his complaint, because it is not a regulated activity. In this decision, I am looking at whether Advantage acted in accordance with the policy terms and fairly and reasonably. I have taken into account the law, regulations and good practice. The starting point is the terms and conditions of Mr A’s policy, which provide that Advantage may cancel the policy for any valid reason, including where the insured has shared insufficient driving data, or shared no driving data for more than 28 days. The question for me to decide is whether Advantage acted fairly and reasonably in this case in relying on the terms of the policy and cancelling Mr A’s policy. Advantage has provided evidence that the last driving data it received from Mr A was on 12 June 2025. It says – and I accept – that its notification to Mr A on 14 July 2025, about missing driving data had been produced before 13 July 2025, when Mr A told it about the theft of his car. On 14 August 2025, Advantage contacted Mr A again about missing driving data. That was after the period excluding Mr A from notifications about his driving data ended. I have listened to the recording of the phone call on 15 August 2025, when Mr A gave Advantage details of his new car. There is no reference to his new car being unroadworthy, that it was undergoing repairs or that he was about to be away on holiday. So, Advantage did not know there would be no driving data from Mr A or that he would not be contactable. I do not think Advantage acted unfairly or unreasonably in sending Mr A the notice of cancellation on 28 August 2025. I think, by then, Advantage had reasonable grounds to conclude that Mr A had shared insufficient driving data. I do not think that the earlier notifications in July 2025 and August 2025 about missing driving data mean that it was reasonable for Mr A to ignore the notice of cancellation on 28 August 2025. Based on what I have seen, I think Advantage took sufficient steps to alert Mr A to the lack of driving data and gave him notice that it may cancel his policy. I think Advantage acted

-- 2 of 3 --

fairly and reasonably in cancelling Mr A’s policy in accordance with the policy terms and conditions. I have seen no evidence to support Mr A’s assertion that when he started driving his new car on 5 September 2025, the data was recording correctly. In any event, even if Mr A was sharing data from 5 September 2025, I think Advantage still had grounds to cancel the policy in accordance with the terms and conditions. Mr A says that when he contacted Advantage about the cancellation of his policy, it said it tried to override the cancellation but could not do so. I do not think that amounts to an admission that Advantage acted in error in cancelling Mr A’s policy. I think that was confirmation that the policy could not be reinstated. There are no grounds on which I can fairly direct Advantage to refund Mr A’s premium. Mr A had the benefit of the policy up to the date of cancellation and, as he made a non-recoverable claim against the policy, Advantage is entitled to the annual premium. The Investigator recommended that Advantage refund the additional amount of £114.27 Mr A paid, with interest, and the £40 it offered in its final response to Mr A. Advantage has now agreed to do that. I think that is fair and reasonable in this case. Putting things right In order to put things right, Advantage should pay Mr A: • £114.27 plus interest at the simple rate of 8% per year from the date Mr A paid that amount, to the date of settlement. • £40, which it offered in its final response to Mr A. If Advantage considers it is required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from the interest, it should tell Mr A how much it has taken off. It should also give Mr A a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs, if appropriate. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint to the extent indicated above. Advantage Insurance Company Limited should now take the steps set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Louise Povey Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --