One Call Insurance Services Limited · DRN-6323247

The complaint Mr S complained that One Call Insurance Services Limited (“One Call”) prematurely collected a renewal premium for a home buildings insurance policy that he didn’t want. What happened Mr S said that One Call took a full annual premium from his bank on 5 September 2024. He said this was higher than the previous year’s policy that was due to expire on 7 September. He said the only option was to make contact via webchat to confirm the renewal wasn’t wanted. But when he used the web chat service he was told he had to call. Mr S said he had difficulty finding a number to call. When he did, he said he was referred to the web chat service. Mr S said he asked One Call to return the payment it had taken, which he thought had been done. He said the payment wasn’t returned. But he lost sight of this due to other pressing issues. Mr S wasn’t satisfied with how he’d been treated and complained to One Call. In its final complaint response One Call said Mr S’s policy was set to automatically renew. It said advance notice was given for when the renewal premium would be taken. Alternatively, it said Mr S should make contact if he no longer wanted to renew the policy. The business acknowledged Mr S made contact on 6 September 2024 and had mentioned taking alternative cover. It said it should have made further contact with him. One Call refunded Mr S’s full premium for £301.42. It also paid him £150 compensation. However, Mr S didn’t think he’d been treated fairly and complained. Our investigator upheld his complaint. She thought the refund and compensation provided was fair. But she said the business should also pay interest on the delayed refund payment. One Call didn’t accept this outcome. It thought what it had paid was fair and so asked for an ombudsman to consider the complaint. It has been passed to me to decide. I issued a provisional decision in April 2026 explaining that I was intending to not uphold Mr S’s complaint. Here’s what I said: provisional findings 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 my intention is to not uphold Mr S’s complaint. Let me explain. Mr S’s buildings insurance was arranged through One Call and renewed several times. I’ve seen the renewal from September 2023. This says that unless Mr S had previously opted out his policy would automatically renew in 12 months’ time. It explained he could check his account online for further information.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr S was sent a renewal notice the following year dated 15 August 2024. The notice explained the policy would auto-renew on 8 September. It said payment would be taken five days prior to renewal. The payment would be taken using the card details Mr S confirmed previously. One Call has shown that a copy of this renewal notice was opened within Mr S’s online account. Mr S hasn’t disputed this. He doesn’t dispute he was aware of the renewal. But he has said that the payment was taken early. However, the evidence shows Mr S’s policy was due to auto-renew and had done in previous years. He was told payment would be taken five days prior to the renewal date in 2024. This aligns with the date payment was taken. So, I can’t see that One Call did anything wrong here. It renewed Mr S’s policy as agreed and took the payment when it said it would. I’ve thought about Mr S’s comments that he had difficulty contacting One Call. And what he said about the differing information he was given around how to do this. I’ve also considered One Call’s comments that Mr S hadn’t specified he wanted to cancel his policy. The records provided show contact Mr S made on 6 September 2024. The notes say a number for the renewal team was given for cancellation. Additionally, that a call back was arranged the same day. The notes say Mr S refused to answer any security questions so the call could not proceed. There is reference to an email that was sent to explain that to cancel the policy Mr S would need to answer security questions. I asked One Call to provide the web chat records and the email it sent on 6 September 2024 after the call it had made. It responded to say there were no records of a webchat. It said it received Mr S’s letter on 6 September via its customer portal where he indicated he had been told via web chat to contact by phone. One Call said it can accept cancellation via web chat and over the phone. It said Mr S would not be told to call unless there are security concerns. In its response One Call provided a copy of the email it sent to Mr S on 6 September 2024. It said to cancel his renewal he will need to agree to answer security questions. A contact number was provided for him to call back. Having considered all of this I think One Call acted fairly when it refunded the 2024/2025 premium back to Mr S. The notes indicate that cancellation was discussed. However, Mr S didn’t agree to answer security questions when he was called. I don’t think it was unreasonable for the business to want to be sure it was speaking to Mr S before cancelling his policy. I don’t agree that interest is necessary on top of the compensation One Call paid. Interest added simply at 8% would equate to around £25. But the £150 it paid more than covers this. The business said it should have attempted further contact with Mr S, which is why it paid him compensation. But I also think Mr S could reasonably have answered the security questions he was asked. Had he done so it’s likely a cancellation and refund will have been actioned on 6 September 2024. So, I won’t ask One Call to pay interest on the refunded premium, or to do more than it already has to resolve Mr S’s complaint. I asked both parties to send me any further comments and information they might want me to consider before I reached a final decision. One Call didn’t respond with any further information or comments for me to consider.

-- 2 of 3 --

Mr S responded with further comments. In summary he said his premiums increased between 2020 to 2025. He said this motivated him to find alternative cover. He said he was unable to do so in previous years due to periods of ill health. Mr S explained that he can find no email that says he will need to answer security questions. He said it was not unreasonable for One Call to return the premiums he had paid. And that when he wrote to our service the money was returned without answering security questions. 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 sorry to hear that Mr S has been unwell. I hope he’s feeling better now. I’ve considered Mr S’s additional comments, along with the emails and medical information he provided. But I’m not persuaded to change my provisional findings. I don’t dispute Mr S’s reasons for not wanting his policy to renew. But as explained in my provisional decision it was made clear that this is what would happen. An attempt was made over the phone to discuss the matter with Mr S. But he declined to answer security questions. This meant instructions to cancel the policy could not be acted upon. I think it’s reasonable for Mr S to expect to answer security questions, to prevent unauthorised access to his account. I acknowledge Mr S’s comments about the information he didn’t receive. But I have seen information that supports an email was sent to him. This explained that to cancel his policy security requirements had to be met. A number was provided for Mr S to call back to cancel his policy. Having reconsidered the evidence, my view of this matter hasn’t changed. I don’t think One Call need to do anything more in response to Mr S’s complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --