Upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Yoga Insurance Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5254302 of 2025-01-10T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Yoga Insurance Services Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5254302 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-01-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Yoga Insurance Services Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Motor insurance, claim handling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Yoga Insurance Services Limited must pay Mrs M £75 compensation in addition to the £75 already offered by the AMC, for a total of £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor referral process and the need to raise a complaint. |
Summary
Mrs M complained about Yoga Insurance Services Limited's referral of her car damage claim to an accident management company (AMC) following a third-party collision in January 2024. Mrs M was confused about why the AMC was handling her claim instead of her insurance company and subsequently received distressing letters from solicitors requesting information and indicating potential liability for costs. The ombudsman found that Yoga failed to provide Mrs M with adequate information to make an informed choice, as the adviser gave incomplete and inaccurate information about the benefits and risks of claiming through her own insurer versus using an AMC, did not assess her need for AMC services, and failed to clarify her options when she explicitly expressed confusion. The ombudsman concluded that had the information been presented clearly, Mrs M would likely have claimed through her own insurer and avoided the distress caused. Yoga was ordered to pay £75 compensation in addition to the £75 already offered by the AMC.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Yoga failed to provide Mrs M with adequate information to make an informed choice. Although Yoga claimed a recorded message was played, there was no evidence Mrs M heard or understood it. During the call itself, the adviser provided incomplete and inaccurate information about the benefits and risks of both options, failed to explain that non-fault claims typically result in excess recovery and hire car availability, and did not assess Mrs M's actual need for AMC services. Critically, when Mrs M explicitly stated she did not understand why the AMC was handling her claim, the adviser did not clarify her options or offer to process the claim through her own insurer. The ombudsman concluded that had the information been presented clearly, Mrs M would likely have chosen to claim through her own insurer, and she would not have experienced the distress and inconvenience of receiving legal letters.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Yoga Insurance Services Limited, all decisions | 10 | 40% |
| Motor insurance, claim handling, all decisions | 12,798 | 32% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 51,105 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website