Not upheld: claim mishandling - incorrect tyre specification and installation complaint against UK Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6064955 of 2026-04-15T00:00:00+00:00. claim mishandling - incorrect tyre specification and installation complaint against UK Insurance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6064955 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | UK Insurance Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | claim mishandling - incorrect tyre specification and installation |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The ombudsman did not direct UKI to do any more in response to the complaint. |
Summary
Mr K claimed that UKI mishandled his European breakdown insurance claim by providing incorrect tyre specifications to a repairer, resulting in a front tyre being installed on the rear wheel. Mr K paid approximately 160 Euros for this incorrect tyre abroad and a further £100 for the correct replacement in the UK. UKI apologised for poor communication and offered £150 compensation but refused to reimburse the tyre costs. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that under the policy terms, the choice of appropriate tyre was between Mr K and the repairer, not UKI's responsibility, and that policyholders must pay for spare parts.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that whilst UKI arranged recovery to a local repairer, the completion of the repair and choice of appropriate tyre was outside the scope of the policy. The policy terms made clear that policyholders must pay for spare parts and that UKI is not responsible for the actions or costs of garages. Since Mr K and the garage had hands-on access to the bike and damaged tyre, the choice of appropriate tyre was between Mr K and the repairer, not UKI's responsibility.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| UK Insurance Limited, all decisions | 3,723 | 33% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website