Veste

Upheld: Motor insurance, total loss valuation complaint against Collingwood Insurance Company Ltd

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5006452 of 2024-09-05T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, total loss valuation complaint against Collingwood Insurance Company Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-5006452
Decision date2024-09-05T00:00:00+00:00
FirmCollingwood Insurance Company Ltd
ProductOther regulated product
Claim typeMotor insurance, total loss valuation
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyCollingwood must pay Mr L £1,165.67 (the shortfall between £9,474.33 paid and £10,640 fair valuation) plus 8% simple interest per year calculated from one month after the date of claim settlement until the date of payment.

Summary

Mr L complained that Collingwood's valuation of his stolen van at £9,474.33 was too low, believing it worth over £14,000. Collingwood had obtained three motor trade valuations (£8,014, £9,760, £10,640) and offered the average without supporting evidence. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the average valuation unfair and determining the fair market value should be £10,640 (the highest valuation) because Collingwood provided no evidence justifying a lower offer. Mr L was awarded £1,165.67 plus 8% interest.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Collingwood's average valuation of £9,474.33 was not fair because it sat in the middle of three closely-grouped valuations without supporting evidence justifying a lower offer. The ombudsman applied the principle that when valuations from guides do not vary significantly and no corroborating evidence supports a lower valuation, the highest valuation should be used as the starting point to avoid detriment to the policyholder. The engine repair work was disregarded as it was a repair rather than replacement, already factored into the trade guides' valuations.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Collingwood Insurance Company Ltd, all decisions2350%
Motor insurance, total loss valuation, all decisions3,41834%
Other regulated product, all decisions51,10530%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website