Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Brooklin Claims Consultants Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained about how BCC, a loss assessor firm, came to be instructed on his fire damage claim in February 2021. Mr W's representative argued that Mr W was vulnerable due to personal medical issues and the aftermath of the fire, and did not understand that signing BCC's mandate would remove his insurance company D from the claims process. The ombudsman reviewed the signed mandate, contemporaneous emails, and other evidence, finding the mandate was clear and Mr W's March 2021 email demonstrated his understanding of the arrangement. Although sympathetic to Mr W's difficult circumstances, the ombudsman concluded the available evidence did not demonstrate BCC misled or took advantage of him, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the mandate was reasonably clear and expressly stated BCC would act as Mr W's representative. The contemporaneous email from Mr W in March 2021 demonstrated he understood the arrangement and had agreed to funds being paid to BCC's account. While acknowledging Mr W's vulnerabilities and difficult circumstances, the ombudsman concluded the available evidence did not demonstrate BCC misled or took advantage of Mr W. D's final response describing general industry practices was not determinative of what specifically happened in Mr W's case and did not provide contemporaneous evidence of concerns about his understanding.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website