Partially upheld: unfair claim valuation - motor insurance total loss complaint against Tradex Insurance Company PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6241485 of 2026-05-19T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim valuation - motor insurance total loss complaint against Tradex Insurance Company PLC. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6241485 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-19T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Tradex Insurance Company PLC |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim valuation - motor insurance total loss |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Tradex directed to: (1) adopt market value of £22,906.00 for the lost car; (2) pay Mr G an additional £934.00 (difference between revised valuation of £22,906.00 and previous valuation of £21,972.00) in addition to the interim payment of £21,122.00; (3) pay simple interest at 8% yearly on £934.00 from 21 October 2025 to date of further payment, with tax treatment as required by HMRC. |
Summary
Mr G complained that Tradex undervalued his stolen car at £21,972.00. The ombudsman reviewed four trade guide figures ranging from £21,770.00 to £22,906.00 and found Tradex's valuation was not supported by persuasive evidence. Tradex's comparable adverts were either significantly higher mileage, marked as outliers, or too recent to be relevant. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, directing Tradex to adopt the highest trade guide figure of £22,906.00 and pay the additional £934.00 difference plus 8% interest from the date of initial payment.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman accepted the four trade guide figures (Glass's £21,770.00, CAP £21,780.00, Percayso £22,365.00, AutoTrader £22,906.00) which created a range of values. Tradex's figure of £21,972.00 was not close to the highest figure of £22,906.00. The ombudsman examined Tradex's supporting evidence but found it unconvincing: one comparable had significantly higher mileage (61,000 vs 41,000), another was marked as 'low' and appeared to be an outlier at £16,993.00, and the recent adverts were not persuasive evidence for October 2025 valuation due to inflation and depreciation factors. The ombudsman concluded Tradex's valuation was insufficient to enable Mr G to purchase a like-for-like replacement vehicle and therefore adopted the highest trade guide figure as fair.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Tradex Insurance Company PLC, all decisions | 83 | 55% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website