Upheld: claim handling, defective repairs, failure to disclose warranty limitations complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Churchill
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6269721 of 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00. claim handling, defective repairs, failure to disclose warranty limitations complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Churchill. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6269721 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | UK Insurance Limited trading as Churchill |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | claim handling, defective repairs, failure to disclose warranty limitations |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | UKI directed to: (1) Arrange a further inspection of the vehicle to ensure repairs were completed properly and carry out any required rectification works; (2) Consider and reimburse Mr A's reasonable financial losses including taxi costs (October 2024 to January 2025) and replacement vehicle costs; (3) Reimburse the £300 cost of the independent engineer's report plus 8% simple interest per year from invoice payment date to settlement; (4) Pay £750 total compensation for delays and handling issues, less any sums already paid. |
Summary
Mr A claimed on his motor insurance policy following a road traffic accident in October 2023. After initial repairs, the vehicle broke down on the motorway, leading to engine replacement in November 2023. A second breakdown occurred in October 2024, and UKI claimed the vehicle's remapped ECU caused the issues rather than their repairs. Mr A incurred significant costs for alternative transport and an engineer's report while disputing UKI's position. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding contemporaneous evidence proved the remap existed before UKI's repairs, and directed UKI to arrange further vehicle inspection, reimburse financial losses and the engineer's report with interest, and pay £750 compensation for claim handling delays.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that UKI had not provided persuasive evidence that the vehicle was remapped between the first and second breakdowns. Contemporaneous correspondence, particularly the original vehicle advert showing higher BHP, demonstrated the remap was present before UKI's engine replacement. UKI's own final response acknowledged they failed to advise about warranty implications due to modifications, effectively accepting responsibility. Since UKI agreed to proceed with repairs, the fair approach was to ensure those repairs were effective through further inspection rather than revisiting the repair decision. The ombudsman considered Mr A's financial losses and distress caused by the prolonged claim handling and significant delays.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| UK Insurance Limited trading as Churchill, all decisions | 4 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website