Haven Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6131701

The complaint Mr A complains that Haven Insurance Company Limited (“Haven”) has unfairly voided his policy and poorly handled claims made under his motor insurance policy. Any reference to Mr A or Haven includes respective agents or representatives. What happened The history of this complaint is well known between the parties. So, I’ve just provided a summary of what’s happened here. • On 7 February 2025 Mr A took out a Haven motor insurance policy through a broker. • On 24 September 2025 Mr A’s vehicle was involved in an incident, and he made a claim under his policy. Haven determined the circumstances of the incident meant it would be classed as a fault claim. • On 1 October 2025 Haven issued a final response providing its response to concerns raised about its claims handling and decision to class the matter as a fault claim. This matter has been looked at by our Service under a separate reference with a final decision issued on 9 January 2026 not upholding his complaint. • On 15 October 2025 Haven said it provided Mr A with a courtesy car under the insurance policy for seven days in line with the terms of the policy. • Mr A complained about Haven’s claims handling and the suitability of the courtesy car it provided. Haven provided a final response letter on 16 October 2025, saying: o The courtesy car provided was in line with the policy terms. Mr A hadn’t taken cover for “enhanced vehicle cover” which was why it was a different class and size to his own car. Haven had correctly charged him an excess of £450 for his claim. And it directed him to the broker of the policy for any complaint about the sale of the policy. o As a gesture of goodwill, it would not make a deduction within its valuation of Mr A’s vehicle despite it being previously recorded as a total loss. o Mr A had stopped paying his premiums so Haven would deduct any outstanding premiums from the settlement it would otherwise make. o Mr A had prevented the claim from progressing as he wouldn’t allow Haven’s agent to collect his vehicle in light of a previous dispute against that company. • Haven said Mr A refused to return the courtesy car after the seven days had passed. Mr A complained at this time as he said Haven was removing the courtesy car from him prior to giving him a settlement to replace the vehicle. And he said he would use the courtesy car for work to avoid any further losses. I understand the provider of the vehicle reported it as stolen and Haven said it agreed with this decision. • On 29 October 2025 the courtesy car was also involved in an incident while Mr A was driving.

-- 1 of 6 --

• Shortly after, Haven told Mr A his claim was on hold while it completed further validation checks. Haven says during a call with its agent, Mr A disclosed that he’d received a six-month driving disqualification in early January 2025. • On 6 November 2025 Haven wrote to Mr A to say it would be voiding his motor insurance policy from inception. Haven said this was as a result of a deliberate misrepresentation on Mr A’s part as he had failed to disclose his driving disqualification when the policy was taken out. Haven said it wouldn’t have accepted this risk on any terms if it had known of this. • Mr A made another complaint, and Haven provided another final response letter on 17 November 2025 which said: o When taking out cover, Mr A had declared that he was the main driver of the insured vehicle, and that he had a full UK driving licence with no restrictions on his licence or convictions on his driving record with the DVLA. o It quoted the question asked of Mr A during the sale which said: “Have you had any driving related convictions, endorsements, penalties, disqualifications or bans in the past 5 years?” Haven said Mr A had answered “no” to this question despite being disqualified from driving in January 2025. Haven said its policyholders must hold a full UK driving licence which Mr A did not have at that time. It considered this to be a deliberate misrepresentation so it would void the contract, refute any claims and retain the premiums. • Mr A brought the matter to this Service and one of our investigator’s assessed the complaint. She didn’t uphold the complaint, saying: o During the sale of the policy Mr A was asked a clear question regarding any driving convictions or disqualifications or bans in the last five years. And he answered “no”. But this wasn’t a reasonable answer as Mr A had been disqualified from driving in January 2025, before the policy was taken out. o Haven provided underwriting evidence to support it would’ve never provided cover if it had known of Mr A’s record. And she agreed Mr A’s misrepresentation was deliberate as she was satisfied, he would’ve been aware of his disqualification, and it wasn’t plausible he was unaware he needed to disclose it or reasonably believed “no” was an accurate answer. o Haven’s remedy to void the policy and retain Mr A’s premiums was in line with the law so she was satisfied this was fair. o Mr A’s other complaint points fell away as the policy voidance meant there was never a duty for Haven to provide a courtesy car or cover any claims. In turn, any complaint about the courtesy car’s suitability or speed of progress of the claim weren’t matters she would consider further. • Mr A disagreed, saying: o There was no evidence to show he knew the information he had provided about his driving disqualification was false, nor that he was reckless as to its accuracy. And he said assumption or inference cannot substitute for proof. o Haven had the ability to verify his licence status at inception. He said it either completed no checks, or it knew but raised no concerns at this time. He said responsibility could not be retrospectively put on him for Haven’s inaction or acceptance of his circumstances. And Haven’s actions (to collect premiums and act as if the policy was valid for a sustained period of time) was not the behaviour of an insurer treating a policy as void from inception.

-- 2 of 6 --

o Mr A disclosed the disqualification himself during a phone call with Haven. He said this supported that he’d never sought to conceal this information. o The matters concerning the voidance of the policy happened after the September 2025 accident and therefore the policy was in force at the time of the claim. So, Haven could not retrospectively extinguish its obligations to settle the earlier insured loss. • The investigator looked again but didn’t change her mind. She said Haven had provided evidence that supported during the call where Mr A disclosed his disqualification to Haven, he’d said he had added a named driver to the policy for the period he was disqualified to allow his car to be driven while he was disqualified. She said this showed Mr A was aware of the disqualification at inception. Furthermore, Haven had provided underwriting evidence which showed they wouldn’t have insured Mr A on any terms, so the distinction of careless and deliberate wouldn’t have impacted whether Haven offered him cover. And she said the voidance meant it was as if the policy never existed, so the other complaint issues fell away. • Mr A asked for an Ombudsman’s final decision. And he reiterated many of his concerns including Haven’s handling of claim matters including its actions concerning the courtesy car it provided him with. Mr A has said comments he made in a call were taken without wider consideration of the call and its purpose. So, the matter has been passed to me for an Ombudsman’s final 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. My role requires me to say how I think a complaint should be resolved quickly and with minimal formality. This means I’ll focus on what I consider to be the crux of this complaint. Where I don’t comment on every point made by parties, this is not intended as a discourtesy nor a reflection that I haven’t seen or considered the points, simply that I don’t consider it to be necessary to reference them within my decision. In this case Mr A has provided substantial submissions and quoted various pieces of legislation, law, and regulatory rules. I won’t address each of these individually, but I assure Mr A that I’ve taken all of his submissions into account. I say this as when I consider what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances, I need to take into account the relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice. I’ll start by setting out the scope of this complaint. As this Service has issued a final decision on earlier events, I want to be clear this decision takes into account events from 2 October 2025 until Haven’s final response of 17 November 2025. Mr A’s complaint concerns a number of different concerns. He’s been very clear he has concerns about Haven’s progression and handling of the claim he made in September 2025, including the suitability of the vehicle it provided him with. As Mr A’s policy has been voided, this has the effect of the policy never being in place at all. This means that Haven wouldn’t be liable for any claims or obligated to have provided a courtesy car etc. as there isn’t a policy for Mr A to have claimed on. So, the first thing I need to consider is whether Haven has voided this policy fairly and reasonably and in line with the relevant law. If it has done so, then Mr A’s other complaint

-- 3 of 6 --

points are largely going to fall away. But if I’m not persuaded Haven has fairly voided the policy, then I’ll need to consider these points about the handling of the claim. Misrepresentation and voidance The relevant Act that I’ve considered is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (“CIDRA”). This sets out that when applying for insurance, consumers have a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation. This policy was sold by a broker, and when doing so, it had to provide information that was clear, fair and not misleading. In line with misrepresentation principles, I would’ve expected the broker to ask clear questions that reasonably gave Mr A the opportunity to understand what he needed to do in order to be appropriately insured in the event of a claim. But this complaint doesn’t concern the broker. This complaint is about Haven – the insurer of Mr A’s policy. So, I’ve thought about Haven’s actions and responsibilities in relation to the broker. And I’m satisfied Haven has been clear in its intention to the broker that it should establish whether Mr A had any driving related convictions, endorsements, disqualifications or bans within the last five years. This is reflective of the question Haven has shown the broker asked Mr A – which said: “Have you had any driving related convictions, endorsements, penalties, disqualifications or bans in the past 5 years?” Within his submission to this Service Mr A has said he was never asked about his driving history at the inception of the policy. Mr A would need to take this complaint up with the broker as the party that sold him the policy. It’s not in dispute that the answer given at the sale was not reflective of Mr A’s driving record. Mr A has been clear he did have a disqualification from January 2025. And in his more recent submissions he’s been clear he was aware of the disqualification when taking out the policy. As a result, I’m satisfied this answer was not correct and not a reasonable answer. I’ve then thought about whether this was a qualifying misrepresentation. That is to say, would this information have impacted Haven’s decision to insure Mr A or would it have insured him on different terms. Haven has provided commercially sensitive underwriting information that shows it wouldn’t have insured Mr A on any terms as a result of his driving disqualification. I then have to consider the classification of the misrepresentation. There are three available classifications of misrepresentation. A qualifying misrepresentation will be 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. If the misrepresentation does not meet the criteria above, it will be classed as a careless

-- 4 of 6 --

misrepresentation. The impact of this is an insurer can void a policy and retain the policyholder’s premiums in the event of a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. But for a careless misrepresentation the insurer will need to consider whether it would’ve insured the policyholder on different terms and return the premiums if not. In this case Haven has said the misrepresentation was deliberate. So, I’ve had to consider these facts. And if I’m satisfied its most likely Mr A’s misrepresentation was either deliberate or reckless I won’t seek to interfere with Haven’s decision as the remedy is the same. Mr A has indicated that there is no evidence or proof to show that he was aware of the disqualification. Mr A has provided little in the way of explanation or evidence to support this statement. And it strikes me that a driving disqualification is something that Mr A would most likely be aware of given its significance. Elsewhere Mr A has said to this Service he never tried to hide the disqualification, and he just wasn’t asked about his record when he took the policy out. As outlined above, he’d need to take this up with his broker. But it seems to me Mr A’s arguments here conflict with each other. Haven has also provided details of the call Mr A had with its agent where he disclosed the disqualification. This reflects Mr A set the policy up with a named driver so the vehicle could be driven while his disqualification was in place. This further supports that Mr A was aware of the disqualification and provided either untrue or misleading information to Haven. Mr A has said these comments were taken out of context and therefore are selective in nature. But he’s not denied what he said, nor given any further reasoning to justify his position. And it’s unclear to me what further context there could be about this disclosure that would alter the facts of what he’s said. For these reasons, I’m satisfied Haven’s conclusion that Mr A’s misrepresentation was a deliberate one is fair and in line with the law. And it follows I’m satisfied its decision to void the policy and retain premiums is fair. I understand Mr A has said he feels strongly that the misrepresentation should be classed as a careless one. While I disagree with this, it would make little difference here as Haven has provided evidence to show it wouldn’t have insured Mr A on any terms, so in either event it would’ve led to the policy being voided. Mr A has said the impact of Haven’s voidance has had a disproportionate impact on him. And he’s described at length how it has had a harmful impact on him particularly in light of his vulnerabilities. But Haven has followed the law – and this is what I am required to take into account. So, while I don’t doubt that the voidance will have a significant impact on Mr A as he has outlined – both financially and mentally. This impact isn’t something I’m going to hold Haven accountable for, nor would I interfere with its decision. Mr A has said Haven should not be allowed to apply the voidance as it either knew about his disqualification from the inception of the policy from its own checks, or alternatively it had the opportunity to discover this itself and failed to carry out its own checks at the time when it should’ve done. And he’s suggested its collection of payment and actions to arrange the policy and consider a claim etc. were indicative of an insurer that had accepted the risk. For the reasons I’ve outlined, I’m satisfied Mr A has made a deliberate misrepresentation when taking out this policy. And I’ve seen nothing to support that Haven knew of his

-- 5 of 6 --

disqualification and accepted him on this basis. The evidence I have suggests the exact opposite – and its underwriting guide is reflective of this too. Mr A appears to argue that the responsibility should sit with Haven for his own lack of disclosure – and I don’t think this is a reasonable position and seems to overlook his own responsibility to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation. Mr A has argued that the voidance has taken place after the September 2025 claim was made and began to be handled. Therefore, this voidance shouldn’t extinguish Haven’s obligations to settle the earlier insured loss. But simply, this is exactly what the voidance allows Haven to do. The law allows Haven to act as if the insurance contract was never in place, meaning that Mr A was never entitled to any courtesy car of any kind, Haven was never required to handle the claim in any way as he effectively isn’t a customer of theirs. For example, this means even if I agreed that Haven didn’t provide Mr A with a suitable courtesy car in line with the policy terms – I wouldn’t be directing Haven to do anything further as the voidance means it was never required to provide him with any car. So, all of the complaint points Mr A has raised about the handling of the claim do fall away, and I’m not going to consider these points any further. My final decision For all the above reasons, I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Jack Baldry Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --