Upheld: claim handling - total loss assessment, delay in settlement, poor communication complaint against Haven Insurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6245878 of 2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00. claim handling - total loss assessment, delay in settlement, poor communication complaint against Haven Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6245878 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Haven Insurance Company Limited |
| Product | insurance |
| Claim type | claim handling - total loss assessment, delay in settlement, poor communication |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Haven Insurance Company Limited to pay Mr M £500 compensation (including £150 previously offered), less any amount already paid. |
Summary
Mr M claimed on his taxi insurance policy following an accident in September 2025. Haven assessed the vehicle as a total loss and proposed settlement for market value rather than repair, which Mr M disputed. A third party subsequently claimed ownership and repossessed the vehicle in December 2025, leading to Mr M's loss of earnings and inability to renew his private hire license. Mr M complained that Haven's poor handling caused his financial difficulties and the repossession. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, awarding £500 compensation for poor communication but rejecting claims for loss of earnings and repossession charges, finding that timely repair would not have prevented the repossession given the timeline and pre-existing payment difficulties.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that even if Haven had agreed to repair the vehicle in late October 2025, the repairs would not have been completed before mid-November, leaving insufficient time for Mr M to restart work and make overdue payments before repossession in early December. The ombudsman noted that some charges pre-dated the incident and that the vehicle owner was unaware of the damage until taking possession, meaning the repossession was not directly linked to Haven's claim handling. The ombudsman concluded that Mr M's financial difficulties were not primarily caused by Haven's decisions regarding the vehicle's future, and that Mr M remained responsible for lease payments during the claim period. However, the ombudsman acknowledged Haven's poor communication caused unnecessary distress.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Haven Insurance Company Limited, all decisions | 401 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website