Not upheld: quality of repairs and claims handling; alleged pressure to use approved repairer complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I claimed on his motor insurance policy with Advantage for damage to his car's glass roof. When he requested use of a dealer's garage, Advantage explained he would incur an additional £250 excess and lose the replacement car benefit, so Mr I used Advantage's approved garage instead. During repairs, the approved garage broke the replacement glass, causing a one-day delay, and after completion Mr I noticed a poorly fitting side trim. Advantage asked Mr I to return to the original garage for rectification and paid £50 compensation for the inconvenience. Mr I felt pressured into using the approved repairer and complained. The ombudsman found Advantage acted fairly and reasonably in communicating policy terms, handling the accidental breakage, and requiring rectification through the original repairer, and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FOS approach of assessing whether the insurer acted in line with policy terms and conditions and fairly and reasonably. Advantage correctly explained the policy consequences of using alternative repairers, which were clearly stated in the policy documents Mr I agreed to. The accidental breakage of glass caused only minor delay and did not result in loss to Mr I. It is fair practice to allow the original repairer an opportunity to rectify defects before permitting use of alternative garages, and Advantage arranged this promptly. The £50 compensation was proportionate to the inconvenience caused.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website