Not upheld: claim handling - liability decision and service communication complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that Advantage Insurance unfairly accepted liability for a motor insurance claim without giving him opportunity to challenge the decision. The accident involved Mr R's named driver hitting a third party vehicle from behind in May 2024. Advantage accepted liability and recorded it as a fault claim, which Mr R only discovered in April 2025. The ombudsman found Advantage acted fairly by relying on the named driver's testimony matching the third party's account, the engineer's report, and the absence of contradictory independent evidence. The ombudsman clarified that 'fault' claims reflect cost recovery rather than actual blame. Advantage's £50 compensation offer for service shortfall was upheld as fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Advantage was entitled to make a commercial decision on liability based on the evidence available and its assessment of the likelihood of successfully defending the case in court. The named driver's testimony matched the third party's account, and as the vehicle was hit from behind, the greater onus was on the named driver to maintain sufficient stopping distance. Advantage reasonably relied on the engineer's report and had no independent evidence to contradict the third party's version. The ombudsman clarified that 'fault' claims are based on cost recovery (NCB disallowed) rather than actual blame, which is standard industry practice.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website