Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Yoga Insurance Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs H complained that Yoga Insurance Services Limited inappropriately referred their motor insurance claim to an Accident Management Company (AMC) without making the risks clear. When Mr H's vehicle was damaged in April 2024, Mrs H called Yoga and was offered a choice between claiming through the insurance policy or using Yoga's agent D as an AMC. Mrs H chose the AMC option but later claimed she was unaware of the implications, particularly after receiving a £5,000 demand from D in November 2024. The ombudsman found that during the initial claim call, Mrs H was provided with sufficient fair and balanced information about both options, including the risks of using an AMC, and made an informed choice. Although a subsequent contact may have contained misleading information, the ombudsman determined D was acting as an independent AMC at that point, not as Yoga's agent, so Yoga was not responsible. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that during the initial claim call, when D was acting as Yoga's agent, Mrs H was provided with sufficient fair, clear, and balanced information to make an informed decision. The recorded message and call explained that D was a separate company, that using its service meant no claim through X, the risks of non-cooperation, and the pros and cons of both options. Mrs H was given a clear choice with no unreasonable pressure. The ombudsman distinguished between D's role as Yoga's agent during the referral (for which Yoga is responsible) and D's subsequent role as an independent AMC (for which Yoga is not responsible). Since the initial referral was handled appropriately, Yoga cannot be held responsible for any subsequent issues.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website