Not upheld: unexpected charges and lack of transparency regarding specialist equipment costs complaint against Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance

Decision detail

Summary

Ms D purchased roadside assistance insurance from Astrenska and made a claim when her car broke down. She was charged £119.80 for specialist equipment (skates) used during the recovery, which she had not anticipated and for which she had not given consent. Ms D complained that the policy terms she reviewed did not mention this charge. The ombudsman found that while the IPID (summary document) did not detail all exclusions, the full policy terms clearly stated specialist equipment was not covered and specifically listed skates as an example. The ombudsman therefore upheld Astrenska's decision to charge for the equipment and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman distinguished between the IPID (a summary document) and the full policy terms. While the IPID does not contain an exhaustive list of exclusions, the full terms clearly state that specialist equipment is not covered and specifically list skates as an example. Since skates were used during Ms D's claim, the charge was not covered by the policy and therefore reasonable. The ombudsman also found that Astrenska fulfilled its obligations by recovering the car to the garage Ms D selected, and was not responsible for subsequent costs incurred when that garage could not perform the repairs.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website