Not upheld: poor credit hire referral and inadequate information provision complaint against BISL Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I complained about BISL's handling of his motor insurance claim following a non-fault road traffic accident. BISL referred him to an unregulated accident management company E for credit hire, but Mr I was dissatisfied with the quality of repairs E arranged. BISL initially failed to respond within the regulatory timeframe but subsequently upheld the complaint and paid £250 compensation. The ombudsman found BISL's referral was poor due to inadequate information about the pros and cons of credit hire versus a standard claim, and that Mr I would likely have chosen a standard claim had proper information been provided. However, since E operated under a separate unregulated agreement, BISL cannot be held responsible for E's actions. The ombudsman upheld the £250 compensation as fair recognition of Mr I's lost opportunity to complain about repairs through a regulated process, and did not direct any further remedy.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found BISL made a poor credit hire referral by failing to explain the pros and cons adequately, leaving Mr I without reasonable awareness of the implications. On the balance of probability, Mr I would have chosen to make a claim on his own insurance policy with L, as he preferred manufacturer repairs and did not require a replacement car—key benefits of credit hire. However, since E was operating under a separate unregulated agreement, BISL cannot be held responsible for E's actions or the quality of repairs. The £250 compensation fairly recognises Mr I's loss of opportunity to complain to the ombudsman about repair quality through a regulated claim, while also accounting for the fact that BISL were not responsible for E's failures and no actual financial loss occurred.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website