DRN-6299273

The complaint Ms M complains that esure Insurance Limited (esure) unfairly cancelled her motor insurance policy. What happened In March 2025, Ms M took out a motor insurance policy with esure via a price comparison website. esure subsequently carried out a validation check, which led to it requesting documentation such as driving licence information. When it became apparent that Ms M hadn’t disclosed three motoring convictions, esure said her policy would be cancelled and proceeded to do so on 19 March 2025. Ms M complained to esure explaining that she had made a genuine error. She asked esure to remove the policy cancellation from its records so that she isn’t impacted by this in the future. esure didn’t uphold the complaint. It said it had cancelled Ms M’s policy fairly as she hadn’t disclosed three motoring convictions. Ms M brought her complaint to this Service. Our Investigator didn’t think that the complaint should be upheld as she thought that esure acted fairly when it cancelled the policy. Ms M disagreed, so it has been passed to me to make a decision. 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’m aware I’ve set out the background to this complaint in less detail than the parties have presented it. I’m not going to respond to every single point raised. Instead, I’ve focused on what I find are the key issues here. I assure both parties, however, that I’ve read and considered everything they’ve provided. esure’s position is that it decided to cancel Ms M’s policy because she’s acted fraudulently or has been in breach of the conditions set out in the policy booklet. However, when looking at a complaint where there is a failure to disclose relevant information, I must first consider whether there has been a qualifying misrepresentation under the relevant law. The relevant law in this case is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Misrepresentation) Act 2012 (CIDRA). And if a consumer fails to do this, the insurer has certain remedies provided the misrepresentation is - what CIDRA describes as - a qualifying misrepresentation. 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 the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, or careless. Did Ms M take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation?

-- 1 of 3 --

esure’s position is that Ms M should have disclosed three motoring convictions which took place in 2024 when she applied for the policy online. The test for whether the consumer took reasonable care is set out in CIDRA. The standard of care required is that of a ‘reasonable consumer'. This means I need to consider what a reasonable consumer would have done in the circumstances. So, I’ve looked at the question Ms M was asked when she purchased the policy online. This said: “Have you had any driving related convictions, endorsements, penalties, disqualification or bans in the past 5 years”? Ms M answered ‘No’. I think this was a clear and specific question asked of Ms M at the time of the policy application. And Ms M has accepted that she made a mistake when answering the question. So, I’m satisfied that Ms M failed to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when she answered ‘No’ to the above question despite having three recent motoring convictions from 2024. Ms M has said she couldn’t access her online account and had she been able to, she would’ve noticed her error and corrected it. Ms M applied for the policy on 1 March 2025 and I can see that on the same day she received an email which said: “To check your documents or contact us, log in to your Account”. So, I’m satisfied Ms M had the opportunity to make contact with esure when she received this email to make it aware she couldn’t access her account. Other than Ms M’s own testimony, I’ve seen no other supporting evidence that she did that. And esure has confirmed Ms M didn’t contact it until after 9 March 2025 which is when it asked her for the information it needed to validate the policy. In any event, esure has confirmed Ms M would’ve needed to tick a box to confirm the information she’d declared was true and accurate prior to purchasing the policy online. The responsibility rests with the policyholder to ensure the information they’re providing is accurate when applying for insurance. So, I don’t think it was unfair for esure to conclude that Ms M didn’t take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation at the time of the application. Was Ms M’s misrepresentation a qualifying one? The next question I’ve considered is the impact on esure as a result of Ms M’s misrepresentation. esure has confirmed that had it known about the three motoring convictions at the outset, it would have offered insurance but at a significantly higher premium. So, esure has shown it wouldn’t have entered into the agreement on the same terms. This means I’m satisfied Ms M’s misrepresentation was a qualifying one under CIDRA. esure has explained that it initially considered maintaining the policy and asking Ms M to pay the premium she should have paid had she not made a misrepresentation. However, given the significant price increase, the recent nature of Ms M’s motoring convictions and financial gain she obtained by making this misrepresentation, it deemed the misrepresentation to have been reckless and deliberate. So, it decided to cancel the policy. Did esure take the appropriate actions under CIDRA? The remedy available to the insurer under CIDRA depends on whether the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless or careless. If the misrepresentation was reckless or deliberate and an insurer can show it would have at least offered the policy on

-- 2 of 3 --

different terms, it is entitled to cancel it. The terms of the insurance policy also entitle esure to do so. I’ve therefore considered whether esure acted fairly in concluding that Ms M was reckless or deliberate in answering the question, which allows it to cancel the policy. Ms M has explained that she completed several online quotes at the time of the application comparing different prices because she wanted to know the difference in price her motoring convictions may cause. And that she went forward with the quote where she didn’t provide the motoring convictions in error. CIDRA says a qualifying misrepresentation will be deemed deliberate or reckless if the consumer: • knew the information they provided was untrue or misleading or did not care whether it was untrue or misleading; and • knew that the matter to which the misrepresentation related was relevant to the insurer, or did not care whether or not it was relevant to the insurer. As Ms M initially included the motoring convictions as part of her online application, it’s clear she knew this was information she needed to disclose to esure. And I think Ms M must have realised from the quotations that her premium was significantly less when she didn’t disclose the motoring convictions. Ms M has said she didn’t do this deliberately but I don’t think it was unfair for esure to treat this as a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. In summary, I’m satisfied esure was entitled to cancel Ms M’s policy. So, I can’t say that it treated her unfairly or unreasonably. I know Ms M is concerned esure’s decision to cancel her policy will have an adverse impact on future insurance applications she makes. I can appreciate Ms M’s upset but I’ve concluded that esure has acted fairly here. So, I’m not going to direct it to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms M to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Linda Tare Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --