Upheld: Motor insurance, total loss valuation complaint against UK Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6313764 of 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, total loss valuation complaint against UK Insurance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6313764 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | UK Insurance Limited |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | Motor insurance, total loss valuation |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Pay Mr P £39,897 in settlement of claim; pay 8% simple interest on the difference between amount already paid and £39,897 from date of initial payment to date of settlement; pay £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. |
Summary
Mr P claimed on his car insurance policy with UKI after his vehicle was stolen. UKI accepted the claim but Mr P was unhappy with how it was handled, particularly regarding the settlement value. The investigator upheld the complaint and recommended increasing the pre-accident settlement value. UKI appealed but indicated they would have made a proactive settlement offer for the same amount. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that the correct pre-accident market value was £39,897 based on valuation guides, and directed UKI to pay this amount plus interest and £350 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied FCA rules requiring insurers to deal with claims promptly and fairly. Using the well-established approach to vehicle valuations, the highest valuation guide supported a settlement value of £39,897. No evidence supported a lower valuation. Since UKI indicated they would have made a proactive settlement offer for this amount had they known of the complaint, agreement was effectively reached on this point.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| UK Insurance Limited, all decisions | 3,739 | 33% |
| Motor insurance, total loss valuation, all decisions | 3,483 | 35% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 24,103 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website