Not upheld: damage claim dispute - causation of vehicle damage during recovery service complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Green Flag

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M complained that her car was damaged during recovery by UKI's agents, specifically to the rear bumper, and that towing shackles and lightbulbs were missing. UKI investigated and concluded the damage was consistent with wear and tear, not caused by the recovery process, and that the recovery agents had loaded the car forwards only. The ombudsman reviewed photographic and video evidence showing the equivalent part was already missing from the other side of the car and that the vehicle was positioned to be loaded forwards, supporting UKI's position. Without contradictory expert evidence from Mrs M despite multiple extensions to provide a garage report, the ombudsman upheld UKI's decision and did not require further compensation beyond the £30 already paid for communication issues.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that on balance, the car was loaded forwards based on photographic evidence showing the front of the car facing the recovery truck ramp, making it unlikely the vehicle was winched from the rear where the damage was located. The only expert evidence available—from UKI's engineers—concluded the damage was consistent with wear and tear and typical of vehicles driven on non-tarmac roads, which was supported by the fact that an equivalent part was already missing from the left-hand side of the vehicle. Without any contradictory expert evidence and given Mrs M's failure to provide a garage report despite multiple extensions, it was reasonable for UKI to rely on its engineers' findings.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website