Advantage Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6053973

The complaint Mr E has complained about how Advantage Insurance Company Limited recalculated his motor insurance policy premium after a claim was removed from relevant databases. What happened A third-party made a claim against Mr E in May 2023. After Advantage investigated the claim, they didn’t consider the other party was able to prove Mr E was involved in an incident, so updated relevant databases in September 2025 to show the claim had been removed. This meant a partial premium refund was owed to Mr E and Advantage paid him around £457. Mr E didn’t think he received enough of a refund for the difference in premium, and asked Advantage to breakdown the calculation for him. Advantage said they weren’t legally obliged to share that information with him. Mr E referred his complaint to this Service. He said he thinks the refund should have been closer to £1,000 for the removal of the claim and more for an additional year of No Claims Discount (NCD). An Investigator looked into what happened but didn’t uphold the complaint – she said she looked over Advantage’s calculations and thought the refund was correct but couldn’t share the evidence with Mr E because it’s commercially sensitive. The complaint couldn’t be resolved so it has come to me to decide. 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. As ours is an informal service, I’m not going to respond to every point or piece of evidence Mr E and Advantage sent us. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be key or central to the complaint. But I’d like to reassure both that I have considered everything submitted. The crux of this complaint is whether Advantage fairly recalculated Mr E’s premium for when his policy renewed in 2023, 2024, and 2025 once the claim against him was removed in 2025. The role of this Service isn’t to tell an insurer what they should charge or to determine a price for the insurance they offer. That’s a commercial judgement and for them to decide. But we can consider whether we agree a consumer has been treated fairly – this involves thinking about whether there’s anything which demonstrates someone has been treated differently or less favourably than other customers. I’ve looked into whether Advantage fairly recalculated the premium for each of the above years when increasing the No Claims Discount and removing the claim. Advantage have provided this Service with confidential information to show how the increase in No Claims Discount and removal of the claim affected Mr E’s premium price. I appreciate Mr E will be disappointed but as the Investigator explained, I can’t share this with him because it’s commercially sensitive. Having considered it carefully, I’m satisfied Mr E’s premium was recalculated in a fair way and I’ve seen no evidence that other Advantage customers in Mr E’s position will have been charged a lower premium or received a larger refund in the same circumstances. So, I won’t be directing them to pay Mr E any more than they have or take

-- 1 of 2 --

any other action. My final decision For the reasons above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Andrew Wakatsuki-Robinson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --