Not upheld: claims handling, vehicle valuation, repair quality, service failures complaint against Marshmallow Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B claimed on his motor insurance policy after his steering wheel was stolen. During the claims process, the vehicle was damaged by the repair agent, then after repairs were completed and returned to Mr B, it veered into a barrier shortly after he began driving it and was written off. Mr B believed the collision was caused by poor repair work and that the vehicle was worth more than Marshmallow's £18,650 offer. He was also distressed by how repair representatives collected a replacement car from his workplace. The ombudsman found that independent assessments and forensic investigation provided no evidence supporting Mr B's theory about the repairs, that the valuation was fair based on trade guides, and that Marshmallow's compensation package of £1,125 plus other gestures was reasonable. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the standard that independent assessors' opinions should be given great weight as specialists whose duty is to a court, not to either party. Two independent sources (the assessor and forensic investigator) found no evidence that poor repairs caused the collision, so it was reasonable for Marshmallow to reject this complaint. Regarding valuation, the ombudsman found that trade guides are the appropriate basis for market value and that the vehicles Mr B cited as comparables were not like-for-like due to different trim levels, mileage, and age. The ombudsman acknowledged the distress caused by the collection incident but found Marshmallow dealt with it fairly by offering additional compensation as a goodwill gesture in the absence of independent evidence. The total compensation package of £1,125 plus full vehicle payment and apologies was deemed reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website