U K Insurance Limited · DRN-6172118

The complaint Mr W complains about U K Insurance Limited trading as Churchill’s (‘UKI’s’) handling of a claim made under his motor legal expenses insurance cover. What happened Mr W wanted to take legal action against a third party after a road traffic accident caused injuries and prevented him from working. He made a legal expenses claim which was accepted. UKI referred it to its panel solicitors. Mr W later complained to UKI about the solicitors. He said the case handler had delayed contacting him for two weeks. He was unhappy they hadn’t agreed to his request for an interim payment and that they wanted him to agree to a settlement that was lower than the amount he wanted. He also thought he’d been denied access to qualified legal representation and said there was a conflict of interest which hadn’t been declared by the solicitors. UKI issued two final response letters on 23 June 2025 and 2 July 2025. It made the following main points: • There was a delay with the case handler at the solicitors contacting him. Though it said the solicitors were still proactively managing the case. • With regards to the request for an interim payment, the solicitors had asked him to complete an employment form of authority in January 2024 but didn’t receive a signed copy of this. Another form was later sent to him to sign, and the solicitors received this in December 2024. • Based on the expert report, the solicitors wanted to pursue a claim for six months loss of earnings. As Mr W had refused to sign this report, the solicitors couldn’t proceed. If Mr W wanted to contest the expert report, he would need to obtain his own expert report. If his expert’s findings were materially different, the cost would be reimbursed. • The solicitors had confirmed an interim payment couldn’t be requested until Mr W signed the medical report. Though the claim was ready to be presented to the other side. • It paid him £150 compensation for the delay in the case handler contacting him, and because it took UKI longer than eight weeks to investigate his complaint. • Whilst his case handler at the solicitors may not have the title of solicitor, they would be qualified to handle the case and were overseen by a qualified solicitor. • It confirmed the policy wouldn’t cover expenses for Mr W to attend medical appointments. It said it would be up to the solicitors if these expenses could be added to the cost of the claim. Unhappy with UKI’s responses, Mr W brought a complaint to this service. Our investigator looked into the complaint but didn’t recommend it be upheld. She explained this service can’t look at complaints about a solicitor, and she thought UKI had done what

-- 1 of 3 --

she would expect after Mr W raised his concerns about the solicitors. She also thought the £150 compensation UKI had paid Mr W was reasonable. Mr W didn’t accept our investigator’s findings and so the matter has been passed to me for a 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. It seems that much of Mr W’s complaint relates to the solicitors’ handling of his legal case. As the investigator explained, they are a separate firm of professionals to UKI with their own set of rules and a different regulator. So, any complaints about the advice or actions of the solicitors appointed would need to be directed to them in the first instance. I see that Mr W has already done this. If he’s unhappy with the response, he can take his complaint to the Legal Ombudsman if he wishes. In this decision, I’ve only considered UKI’s handling of the claim up to the date of its second final response of 2 July 2025. Industry rules set out by the regulator (the Financial Conduct Authority) say insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly. I’ve taken these rules, and other industry guidance, into account when deciding what I think is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of Mr W’s complaint. When Mr W first raised his concerns about the solicitors with UKI, I’m satisfied it acted appropriately and let the solicitors know about Mr W’s concerns. This is what I would have expected from an insurer. UKI did offer to put Mr W in touch with alternative panel solicitors and also said he could choose his own solicitor. I think that was reasonable, though Mr W didn’t want this. UKI then continued communicating with Mr W and the solicitors to try and address the concerns he’d raised, which is evidenced in its final response letters. I think that was reasonable. Though it wasn’t UKI’s role to manage the solicitors or be held responsible for their actions. I’ve noted Mr W’s concerns about a potential conflict of interest. However, conflicts of interest are for solicitor firms to consider and decide whether it’s appropriate for them to act for a client, before they agree to take on a case. No concerns were raised by the solicitors here. So, I don’t think UKI needed to consider this or do anything differently. Mr W was also concerned that he hadn’t received any advice from a qualified solicitor. I see that UKI checked this and was given the name of the qualified solicitor who had overseen his case, including the legal advice from April 2025 which set out the value of his legal claim at the time based on the findings of the expert report. I’m satisfied this was a reasonable response by UKI. Mr W feels strongly that his claim is worth more than the amount the solicitors want to settle for. Though his own assessment of his legal case can’t reasonably outweigh the assessment of a qualified solicitor. Whilst I can’t make any findings on the legal opinion, I note the solicitors’ assessment was based on an expert medical opinion. UKI has explained to Mr W that if he doesn’t agree with that expert report, then he can seek his own. If this reaches materially different conclusions, then he can provide this to the solicitors to reconsider and the cost of obtaining the report will be reimbursed. I think that response was fair.

-- 2 of 3 --

UKI has noted there was a delay with the case handler at the solicitors initially getting in touch with Mr W. Whilst this wasn’t UKI’s fault, it still thought Mr W had been caused some unnecessary inconvenience by this. UKI also acknowledged that it hadn’t responded to Mr W’s complaint within eight weeks. Though I see that UKI did tell Mr W that it needed more time, but that he could refer his complaint to this service if he wished. That is what UKI was required to do under the regulator’s complaint rules. Though I appreciate Mr W was disappointed with the delay. UKI paid Mr W £150 compensation for the impact on him by these matters, which I find to be reasonable. I see that UKI has addressed some new concerns raised by Mr W in a final response letter dated 13 February 2026. If Mr W wants this service to consider a new complaint about matters in that letter, he should let our investigator know and we will set up a new case for him, subject to our usual time limits. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Chantelle Hurn-Ryan Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --