DRN-6296463

The complaint Mr E has complained about the sale of a ‘courier’ motor insurance policy by One Sure Insurance Limited. What happened In mid-2025, Mr E left his van in a loading bay at a business premises while he carried out some work for them. When he returned, he found his van had rolled out of its parking spot and hit a sign. I understand the van has been written-off. Mr E says this happened because another employee entered his van and must have released the handbrake. Mr E’s insurer rejected his claim for the cost of repair or replacement of the van. I have dealt separately with a complaint about this decision by the insurer. I determined that the insurer was entitled to reject the claim, as I thought it was more likely than not that Mr E had left the van unlocked, which was a breach of the policy terms. Mr E is very unhappy with this, as he has lost work due to the damage to the van and wants to take legal proceedings against the employer to recover his losses. However, when he tried to claim for legal expenses cover to do so, Mr E found that the policy did not include legal expenses insurance cover. Mr E says that he previously had legal expenses cover included in his policy but it was auto renewed by One Sure in June 2025 without the legal expenses cover. In addition, Mr E says the renewed policy was with a different insurer and the claim excess had increased. He says he was not made aware of either change. Mr E has complained that the policy was mis-sold to him and he wants One Sure to compensate him for not being able to use legal expenses insurance to recover the value of his van and other losses. One Sure says it wrote to Mr E on 23 May 2025 to notify him his policy was coming up for renewal. It recommended a policy with another insurer and sent all the information which, showed it did not include legal expenses cover. One Sure said the letter informed Mr E that it would automatically renew the policy for him unless he told it he wanted any changes. One Sure says Mr E did not make contact or raise any questions, so the new policy started on 9 June 2025. One Sure accepts that it should have included legal expenses cover in the offer for the renewal, as Mr E had previously had this, but it says Mr E also had an obligation to check the cover. One Sure also says the policy starting in June 2025 had a lower excess than the previous policy. Mr E was not happy with One Sure’s response, so he referred the complaint to us. One of our Investigators looked into the matter. He agreed that there had technically been a mis-sale, as legal expenses cover should have been included in the renewal offer sent to Mr E. However, he did not think it would have made any difference to Mr E’s position now as the legal expenses cover only provided for situations where there is uninsured loss following a non-fault accident and, as in this case the insurer has said Mr E left the van unlocked, it

-- 1 of 3 --

would likely not have provided cover for legal action in this scenario anyway. The Investigator also said that while the previous policy had a standard excess of £1,000, but Mr E said it would be discounted to £500 if a claim was reported within 24 hours, and the excess on the new policy was £633. The Investigator noted he had not been provided with the previous policy terms to verify this. He said that while overall the excess was lower with the new policy, if the previous policy allowed a discount for prompt reporting of a claim then there was potential for it to be higher. The Investigator said it would have been helpful for this to have been discussed with Mr E but did not think there had been any negative impact on Mr E as a result of this. The Investigator recommended that One Sure pay Mr E £150 for the poor service with regard to the sale. Mr E does not accept the Investigator’s assessment, so the matter has been passed to me. 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 am mindful of the impact this incident has had on Mr E; he has experienced financial difficulties as a result of not having his van, which has also impacted his health and personal wellbeing. However, having considered this very carefully, I do not intend to uphold this complaint. I will explain why. One Sure has accepted that it should have added legal expenses cover to the renewal proposal in June 2025 but didn’t. I agree it should have done so. And while Mr E also had a responsibility to check the documents and cover being offered, I think he was entitled to expect that the new policy would have provided the same fundamental elements of cover that he had the year before. I cannot see anything in the documents sent to him that would have drawn his attention to the fact legal expenses cover was no longer being included. I have to therefore now consider what impact this had on Mr E and what needs to be done, if anything, to put this right. In assessing this, I have to think about what would have happened had the legal expenses insurance cover been included. Mr E says he has lost the opportunity to take legal proceedings against the employer who he says would have been responsible for the other employee’s actions in moving his van. However, I have seen the legal expenses policy terms and, as the Investigator has pointed out, they state that cover will be provided to help recover uninsured losses as a result of a non-fault accident. Mr E’s insurer deemed that the accident was not non-fault but was the result of Mr E leaving his van unlocked. I know that Mr E doesn’t agree with that but I have already determined that it was entitled to take this position. Given this, it seems to me that even if Mr E had the legal expenses cover from June 2025, he would not have been able to pursue a claim for recovery of his uninsured losses. I therefore do not consider that Mr E’s position would be any different. With regard to the policy excess, I agree that if the previous policy had a reduction for claims notified within 24 hours (which I have not been able to verify) then potentially the new policy might, in certain circumstances, have a higher excess. Again, I do not consider that this has caused any detriment to Mr E but I agree with the Investigator that it would have been helpful for One Sure to have made this clearer to Mr E at the time, so he understood the policy terms. I also agree with the Investigator that some compensation is warranted for the fact that One Sure did not include the legal expenses cover when it should have done and did not discuss

-- 2 of 3 --

the change in the excess. I consider £150 to be appropriate. I understand this as already been paid to Mr E. My final decision I uphold this complaint and require One Sure Insurance Limited to pay Mr E the sum of £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this matter, if it has not done so already. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Harriet McCarthy Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --