Partially upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Trinity Lane Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms L claimed on her specialist vehicle motor insurance policy with Trinity Lane after her motorhome was damaged in an accident on 21 July 2023. The initial repairer completed most repairs by November 2023, but decal work remained outstanding and was subcontracted to a specialist who failed to complete it. Trinity Lane did not take effective action until May 2024, resulting in repairs not being completed until July 2024—approximately eight months after the initial repairs. Ms L claimed she intended to sell the motorhome in autumn 2023 but was unable to do so due to the delays, resulting in depreciation losses and additional costs. The ombudsman found Trinity Lane responsible for the delays as the repairer and subcontractor acted as its agents, but rejected the depreciation claim due to the unpredictable nature of motorhome valuations and lack of quantifiable evidence of loss. Compensation of £500 was awarded for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Trinity Lane remains responsible for delays caused by its subcontracted specialist because the repairer and subcontractor acted as agents of Trinity Lane, not independent parties. Ms L had a contract with Trinity Lane, not the repairers. Trinity Lane should have taken robust action when delays became apparent in February 2024 but failed to do so for several months. However, the claim for depreciation loss cannot be upheld because motorhome valuations are highly unpredictable and dependent on numerous variables (desirability, market conditions, season, asking price, etc.). There is no quantifiable evidence that Ms L would have sold the motorhome sooner or for a higher price had repairs been completed earlier, as no buyer was waiting at an agreed price. The signature forgery allegation is accepted as likely true given the garage's financial incentive to obtain payment before work completion and the lack of benefit to Ms L and Mr C in falsely signing a completion note. Compensation is awarded for distress, inconvenience, and the considerable effort Ms L expended pursuing the claim and complaint, but not for unquantifiable financial losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website