Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against AXA Insurance Designated Activity Company

Decision detail

Summary

Miss O claimed that AXA should have declared her damaged car a total loss rather than arranging repairs. She believed the car's market value was lower than AXA's assessment, making repairs uneconomical. She also complained about poor communication and delays in obtaining a replacement seat heat pad. The ombudsman found AXA's decision to repair was reasonable under the policy terms, as repair costs were approximately 30% of the car's market value according to reliable motor trade guides. Miss O's alternative valuation evidence was not persuasive. While AXA made minor communication errors, the £100 compensation paid was deemed fair, and the delay in obtaining the heat pad part was outside AXA's control. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that AXA's policy wording clearly stated it could choose how to settle a claim, and repair was the reasonable option as costs were only 30% of market value. The motor trade guides used by AXA provided more reliable valuation evidence than Miss O's part exchange valuation (which is inherently lower due to dealer profit margins) or online adverts (which showed higher mileage vehicles). While AXA made minor communication errors, the £100 compensation was fair, and the delay in obtaining the heat pad part was outside AXA's control.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website