Partially upheld: claims handling - damage caused by insurer's agents during vehicle custody complaint against Advantage
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6135033 of 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00. claims handling - damage caused by insurer's agents during vehicle custody complaint against Advantage. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6135033 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Advantage |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | claims handling - damage caused by insurer's agents during vehicle custody |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Advantage must: (1) repair Mr C's vehicle as per points 1-7 in his independent engineer's report, or pay for repairs at a garage of Mr C's choice subject to receipt of invoices; (2) reimburse Mr C the cost of his independent engineer's report plus 8% simple interest from date of payment; (3) pay £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience (less any amounts already paid) within 28 days, with 8% simple interest if paid later. |
Summary
Mr C claimed under his motor insurance policy after his vehicle was damaged in a fire. Advantage collected the vehicle, declined the claim as uneconomical to repair, and returned it to Mr C with additional damage not present after the fire incident. Mr C obtained an independent engineer's report documenting seven itemised damage points allegedly caused by Advantage's agents while handling the vehicle with telehandlers and forklifts. Advantage obtained their own engineer's report and offered approximately £3,821.35 for repairs but denied full liability. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding Mr C provided sufficient evidence that the damage occurred in Advantage's custody and requiring Advantage to repair the vehicle per Mr C's engineer's report, reimburse the engineer's report cost with interest, and pay £200 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that Mr C provided sufficient evidence through photographs and an independent engineer's report that the additional damage occurred while the vehicle was in Advantage's custody. Advantage failed to provide persuasive documentary or photographic evidence of the vehicle's condition when collected and returned, which hampered investigation. Given the vehicle was in Advantage's custody for months and the evidence supports significant damage occurring during that period, Advantage should be held liable. The ombudsman gave greatest weight to the independent expert motor engineer reports as per FOS practice.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Advantage, all decisions | 1 | 50% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website