Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained that Accredited Insurance unfairly refused her request to fund her own choice of solicitor after becoming unhappy with the panel firm appointed to handle her legal claim. The panel firm had allegedly submitted her claim through the wrong portal and undervalued it. The ombudsman found that Miss C's freedom to choose her own solicitor only arises when proceedings become necessary, and since her claim had not been litigated at the time of her request, Accredited was entitled to refuse. The ombudsman rejected Miss C's conflict of interest argument and noted that complaints about the solicitor's conduct should be addressed separately through the Legal Ombudsman. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint but indicated that Accredited should engage meaningfully with Miss C's funding request now that the claim is ready for litigation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the policy terms and relevant regulations to determine that Miss C's freedom to choose her own solicitor only arises when proceedings become necessary (litigation or formal inquiry). Since Miss C's claim had not been litigated at the time she requested funding for her own solicitor, her freedom to choose had not yet arisen. The ombudsman rejected Miss C's argument that a conflict of interest existed, finding that mere unhappiness with a solicitor's actions does not constitute a conflict. The ombudsman also noted that solicitors have their own regulator and that Miss C should address complaints about the panel firm's conduct with the solicitors directly or through the Legal Ombudsman.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website