Not upheld: claim handling - failure to provide alternative vehicle complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that UKI unfairly handled his motor insurance claim by failing to ensure he had an Alternative Vehicle prior to his car being taken for repairs, despite allegedly informing him he would receive one. Mr W argued this was unreasonable given his disability and reliance on his vehicle for mobility. UKI responded that it offered a courtesy car in line with policy terms and that Motability Operations is responsible for providing a suitable Alternative Vehicle. The ombudsman found that the policy terms clearly assign responsibility for Alternative Vehicles to Motability Operations, not UKI, and that UKI's role was limited to acting as a booking agent. The ombudsman also found no evidence supporting Mr W's allegation that UKI gave a firm assurance about the Alternative Vehicle. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that the policy terms clearly define Alternative Vehicle as the responsibility of Motability Operations, not UKI. While recognizing Mr W's disability and the distress caused by being without a suitable replacement vehicle, the ombudsman found that UKI's role was limited to acting as a booking agent on behalf of Motability. The ombudsman reviewed the claims notes and calls and found no evidence supporting Mr W's allegation that UKI gave a firm assurance about providing an Alternative Vehicle prior to the car being collected for repair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website