Acorn Insurance and Financial Services Limited · DRN-6056162

The complaint Mr P complains Acorn Insurance and Financial Services Limited caused him a financial loss when arranging a taxi insurance policy. What happened In August 2025 Mr P used Acorn as an intermediary to arrange taxi insurance. The premium was based on him having eight years No Claims Discount (NCD). In early September 2025, as Mr P hadn’t evidenced the NCD, Acorn removed the relevant discount, increasing the annual premium by around £875. After some back and forth Mr P provided evidence of the NCD he was relying on. However, as it wasn’t in his name or earned from a taxi policy, Acorn didn’t accept it as valid for the policy. In October 2025 Mr P complained to Acorn. He said Acorn had failed to request evidence of his NCD during a 14-day cooling off period. He said that had deprived him of the opportunity to exercise his statutory right to cancel the policy without incurring additional fees. He requested Acorn review the NCD evidence he had provided and reinstate the discount, providing an appropriate refund. Acorn issued a complaint final response. It maintained its position that the NCD Mr P had provided wasn’t valid for the policy. It said it was entitled to ask for policy validation documentation at any point during the policy period, not just within the first 14 days. But it explained it had first requested the NCD proof within that period. It said it had made reasonable efforts to notify him, before removing the NCD and charging the additional premium. It did accept it had given an incorrectly extended deadline for provision of the proof, but felt that hadn’t made a difference as Mr P hadn’t met it anyway. It offered £25 compensation for that mistake. Mr P, unsatisfied with Acorn’s response, referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He said that as Acorn hadn’t requested the NCD proof in the cooling off period he faced additional costs for cancellation, forcing him to accept the increased premiums. In response to the complaint being referred here Acorn made a new settlement proposal. It offered to increase the compensation award to £50 in total. It said if Mr P can provide evidence of unused NCD, in his name and earned on a private or public hire policy then it would requote this policy with the NCD applied. It also said that should Mr P wish to cancel the policy, because of the NCD issue, it would waive the cancellation fee. Mr P didn’t accept that as a resolution, so our Investigator considered his complaint. She wasn’t persuaded Acorn had done anything of significance incorrectly. So she didn’t recommend it reinstate the NCD, refund any premiums or pay any additional compensation. As Mr P didn’t accept that outcome the complaint was referred 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

-- 1 of 3 --

in the circumstances of this complaint. I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As this is an informal service I’m not going to respond here to every point or piece of evidence Mr P and Acorn have provided - that includes Mr P’s references to various rules and regulations. Instead, I’ve focused on those I consider to be key or central to the issue. But I would like to reassure both that I have considered everything submitted. Having done so, I’m not going to uphold the complaint. The thrust of Mr P’s complaint is this - Acorn, by failing to notify him of the need to provide proof of his NCD during the first 14 days of his cover, prevented him from cancelling his policy without financial penalty. His argument is that had Acorn asked for the proof earlier, he would have known within a policy cooling off period, that the NCD he was relying on wasn’t applicable to the policy. He would then have cancelled the policy within a cooling off period, avoiding fees applicable outside of that period. First, I’m satisfied Acorn’s position, that the NCD Mr P relied on isn’t valid for the policy, is reasonable. From what I’ve seen it doesn’t appear to have been earned from a taxi policy, instead being from a motor trade policy held by a limited company, listed on Companies House as being involved in used car sales. Acorn has said motor trade NCD is not applicable to taxi policies as they are distinct risk categories. I consider that a reasonable position. This means I’m not going to require it to reinstate the NCD or refund any related premiums. I don’t consider Acorn to be responsible for the NCD being incorrectly applied and then withdrawn. Instead, that arose from Mr P’s provision of incorrect information. Acorn provided screen shots of the questions he was asked when arranging the policy. The relevant question asked how many years of ‘Taxi NCD’ he had. He answered eight. He was then asked on what type of policy he earned the NCD. The options given were ‘private hire’ or public hire’. He answered, ‘private hire’. As already established neither of these answers appear to be applicable. Mr P has said he had eight years NCD from ‘private hire experience under a fleet policy’. However, the NCD wasn’t earned from, as the questions asked, a private hire taxi policy. It was a motor trade policy. So it was Mr P’s incorrect answers to Acorn’s questions that ultimately resulted in eight years NCD being incorrectly applied and later removed. I appreciate it may have been a genuine misunderstanding on Mr P’s part, but if he had any doubts he could have contacted NCD for clarity before answering the questions. Further, as Acorn has explained it isn’t restricted to requesting validation documentation in the first 14 days of the policy. Acorn’s Terms of Business, provided to Mr P, explains it will contact policyholders if it requires any supporting evidence. The Terms don’t limit this process to the first 14 days of cover. So even if it did fail to request the NCD evidence within that period, I wouldn’t find it had acted outside of Acorn’s Terms. Even if I did find Acorn should have, but failed to, request NCD proof with the first 14 days of the policy I still wouldn’t find it had disadvantaged Mr P. I say that as it took him around 28 days to provide his proof. I’ve no reason to believe he would have provided it more promptly had he been asked in the 14-day period. So the NCD would have been found invalid, with the additional premium added, after the 14-day period anyway. Had that happened Mr P would have faced the same cancellation costs. For this reason, I don’t consider an issue with Acorn holding and using an incorrect number to contact Mr P, in the first week of the policy, to be of any significance.

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Mr P has said Acorn, already aware his NCD was invalid, deliberately waited until after the 14-day period to request proof. I haven’t seen any persuasive evidence to support this claim. It’s more likely Acorn simply requested NCD proof as part of standard and genuine policy validation process. For these reasons I’m not persuaded Acorn’s responsible for causing Mr P any financial loss or inconvenience. So, I’m not going to require it to reinstate the NCD, refund any premiums or waive any further fees. My final decision For the reasons given above, Acorn Insurance and Financial Services Limited must honour the offers set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Daniel Martin Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --