Not upheld: poor service and claim handling; refusal to pay compensation for distress and inconvenience complaint against Tesco Underwriting Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B and Ms S claimed that Tesco Underwriting Limited provided poor service after they made a motor insurance claim for damage to their car in October 2023. After being told the car was a total loss, they withdrew the claim and paid for repairs themselves. They later complained about the total loss decision and the lack of a courtesy car while repairs were arranged. Tesco re-opened the claim in February 2024 and reimbursed the repair costs. The complainants then sought compensation for distress and inconvenience. The ombudsman found that Tesco acted reasonably in re-opening the claim and that since the complainants had withdrawn the claim and used a non-approved garage, Tesco was not responsible for the resulting inconvenience. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman could only review events after the claim was re-opened in February 2024 due to FOS time limits. Regarding the period after re-opening, Tesco was not obliged to re-open the claim as it had been withdrawn by the complainants. The inconvenience and stress of arranging repairs was a consequence of the complainants' decision to withdraw the claim and use a non-approved garage. Tesco was not involved in the repair process and therefore could not be held responsible for the lack of a courtesy car from the selected garage. The ombudsman found Tesco acted fairly and reasonably in retrospectively paying the repair bill.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website