UK Insurance Limited · DRN-6033613

The complaint Mrs B complains that U K Insurance Limited (“UKI”) is responsible for mishandling her claim on a motor insurance policy. What happened The subject matter of the insurance, the claim and the complaint is a hatchback car, first registered in 2013. Mrs B acquired the car in 2015. Mrs B was living in a flat and parking the car on the street. For the year from 1 September 2024, Mrs B had the car insured on a comprehensive policy with UKI. That included “Motor Legal Cover”. Mrs B reported to UKI that on about 2 September 2024, a Housing Association gardener had accidentally damaged the car. UKI arranged for its repairer to repair the car. Mrs B asked UKI about pursuing a claim against the Housing Association. By an email dated 13 September 2024, UKI’s legal expenses team said the following: “Unfortunately, we are unable to provide cover for your claim because: This cover can be used to claim your uninsured losses if you and your car are involved in a road traffic accident with a moving vehicle, as defined by the Road Traffic Act, where someone else is to blame.” By about November 2024, Mrs B complained to UKI about poor-quality repairs. By January 2025, Mrs B complained to UKI about lack of progress and communication and about the outcome of her claim. By a final response dated 22 January 2025, UKI turned down the complaint about the outcome of the claim. UKI accepted that there had been shortcomings in its communication and that the repair had needed rectification. UKI said it was sending Mrs B a cheque for £200.00. By March 2025, Mrs B complained to UKI about lack of updates. By a final response dated 8 April 2025, UKI accepted that complaint. UKI said it was sending Mrs B a cheque for £75.00. On about 22 April 2025, Mrs B complained to UKI including about failing to involve its legal team and failing to chase the Housing Association.

-- 1 of 5 --

By a final response dated 19 May 2025, UKI accepted that it hadn’t told Mrs B it had closed her claim. UKI said it was sending Mrs B a cheque for £150.00. That made a total of £425.00. Mrs B brought her complaint to us on about 10 June 2025. Our (first) investigator didn’t recommend (in mid-August 2025) that the complaint should be upheld. She thought that UKI’s decision on liability was fair. She thought that UKI had failed to keep Mrs B updated. However, the investigator thought that the amount of compensation paid had gone far enough to put things right. Mrs B disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. She asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. Our second investigator didn’t think that the first investigator had considered all the complaint including about quality of repairs. The second investigator didn’t recommend (in mid- December 2025) that the complaint should be upheld. He thought that UKI’s decision not to pursue the Housing Association was reasonable. He thought that the total amount of compensation fairly reflected the trouble and upset its actions caused Mrs B. Mrs B disagreed with the investigators’ opinions. She asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. She says, in summary, that: • The first incident was on 26 April 2023 when the gardener smashed her car window. The Housing Association denied liability. • The gardener caused damage in the second incident on 2 September 2024. • UKI didn’t challenge the Housing Association’s reasons for denying liability. • She got legal advice that the Housing Association had a process in place in September 2024. • UKI told her to pursue the Housing Association herself. However, UKI had paid her claim so she didn’t have any loss to pursue. • UKI’s repairer returned the car to her on 5 October 2024 with numerous problems. • The car went back to the repairer on 28 October 2024. • On 1 December 2024, the repairer retuned her car with some of the same problems as before and some new damage on the driver’s side. • There was a third incident on 13 February 2025 when the gardener allowed lumps of mud to flick all over her car when strimming. He admitted liability for the first incident. • On 24 March 2025, the repairer said a part (trim) was still awaited with no delivery date. • The gardener keeps returning and she suffers stress and anxiety every time. • UKI allowed the Housing Association gardener to get away with it. So there is no deterrent and they don't need to take any care. • The compensation wasn’t enough. • She will never feel that UKI dealt with her claim fairly. That really hurts because she worked for the company for many years.

-- 2 of 5 --

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. Scope of this decision The Financial Conduct Authority’s dispute resolution rules are binding on the Financial Ombudsman Service. One such rule is that a consumer must first have complained to the regulated firm and waited for up to eight weeks for a final response before we can investigate that complaint. It sometimes happens that a consumer makes a complaint to the firm, receives a final response and brings the complaint to us, but with the addition of more recent points of complaint. When that happens, we can investigate the initial complaint, but the rule doesn’t allow us to investigate the more recent complaint as part of the same investigation. Another rule is that we must operate a two-stage process under which an investigator gives an opinion and, if either party asks, an ombudsman gives a final decision. I haven’t seen enough evidence that Mrs B complained to UKI about the extent or quality of the rectification work that the repairer did in November 2024 or about new damage. So I consider that our investigators were correct not to give an opinion on that. And I can’t make any findings about that in this decision. This decision When a policyholder makes a claim, their insurer may make an outlay, for example on repairs. It’s common practice for the insurer to treat the claim as a fault claim against its policyholder unless and until it recovers its outlay a in full, typically from a liable third party. UKI’s policy terms included the following: “When we can act on your behalf We’re entitled to do either of the following > Take over and carry out the negotiation, defence or settlement of any claim in your name… > Start legal proceedings in your name… This can be for your benefit or our own benefit.” I consider that the effect of that term was that, on a question of how best to deal with a claim against a third party, UKI’s view would prevail over its policyholder’s view. That’s not uncommon in motor policies. Unlike a court, we don’t hear evidence from the car-owner and the other party to decide whether there is liability for damage. The damage and the need to make a claim were, in my view, bound to cause Mrs B some distress and inconvenience. However, UKI was under a duty to deal with the claim promptly and fairly. I would expect UKI to get the car repaired right first time. That didn’t happen. The impact on Mrs B included delay, irritation and the inconvenience of having to arrange for the car to go back for rectification work.

-- 3 of 5 --

However, UKI arranged a courtesy car for Mrs B. So the impact on Mrs B was less than it would otherwise have been. I’m satisfied that UKI took into account Mrs B’s report that the gardener had caused damage in early September 2024. I accept that Mrs B understands that the Housing Association was aware of the risk of gardeners accidentally propelling debris at parked cars. However, the Housing Association denied liability to Mrs B for such damage. So UKI had to decide whether to continue the correspondence and whether to pass the file to solicitors to pursue court proceedings against the Housing Association. The motor legal cover was for recovery of any uninsured losses, not recovery of the insured loss for which UKI had made its outlay. UKI suggested to Mrs B that she could seek independent legal advice to pursue the third party. Whilst I appreciate that Mrs B didn’t have any success with this, I don’t consider that UKI’s suggestion treated her unfairly. After all, she was concerned about preventing future damage. UKI weighed up the prospects of success in any action against the Housing Association to recover its outlay on repairs. It was concerned that it wouldn’t be able to prove that the Housing Association had been negligent. UKI decided that those prospects didn’t justify the cost and risk of court proceedings. I keep in mind the policy term quoted above. I also keep in mind the unusual fact that the claim wouldn’t be against another motor insurer but rather against the Housing Association but rather against the Housing Association or its public liability insurer . So I don’t consider that UKI treated Mrs B unfairly by closing her claim without further action against the Housing Association. Nevertheless, I consider that UKI was responsible for some poor service. That included failure to communicate properly with Mrs B. The impact on her included that she felt that she was left in the dark and had to chase UKI for progress and updates. I’ve thought about the shortcomings I’ve found in UKI’s response and their impact on Mrs B. I’ve thought about what I would’ve found it fair and reasonable to direct UKI to pay if it hadn’t made any offer or payment. UKI isn’t responsible for the past or future actions of the Housing Association. So it wouldn’t be fair from me to direct UKI to pay compensation for Mrs B’s understandable anxiety about future damage. I’ve weighed up the nature and extent of the impact on Mrs B of the shortcomings for which I’ve held UKI responsible. Overall, I’m satisfied that £425.00 is fair and reasonable and in line with our published guidelines for compensation for distress and inconvenience. So I don’t conclude that it would be fair and reasonable to direct UKI to do any more in response to this complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t direct U K Insurance Limited to do any more in response to this complaint.

-- 4 of 5 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --