RegulationJan 28 2015

Fos criticised over ‘lapsed policy’

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Fos criticised over ‘lapsed policy’

A consumer has criticised the Financial Ombudsman Service after being told there was nothing it could do about his insurance policy being cancelled.

Adrian McCall, of County Down, complained to Fos after having two heart attacks last year and being told by his insurer Royal London that the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums.

Mr McCall said he accepted that, on one occasion in July 2012, there was not enough money in his account to pay for the premium, but when Royal London attempted to take a double premium the next month his bank prevented this from happening.

Both Mr McCall’s bank and BACS have written to tell him that his insurance company was in the wrong but Fos found in favour of Royal London.

Adjudicator Parvin Begum wrote to Mr McCall to tell him Royal London took “reasonable steps” to let him know that if he didn’t pay the outstanding premium his policy would lapse.

Mr McCall said: “I have asked Fos where it says in my policy that I am at fault if it doesn’t take the money.

“The biggest problem is having to fight Fos. It is meant to be independent but it seems to be nothing more than a lap dog for the insurance industry.”

Right to reply

The Fos said: “The ombudsman isn’t able to comment on ongoing cases, though I can confirm the case is currently with an ombudsman for a final decision.”

A spokesman for Royal London said: “We are unable to comment while the matter is being handled by the Financial Ombudsman Service.”