Partially upheld: claims handling, failure to make reasonable adjustments, communication failures complaint against ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B complained about ARAG's handling of her legal expenses insurance claim, including communication failures, failure to make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities, and the quality of legal representation received. ARAG appointed law firm L which withdrew, then law firm D which later developed a conflict of interest. When Miss B sought to appoint her own solicitor, law firms M and S declined representation, and ARAG appointed law firm C. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding that ARAG breached its duty to communicate fairly by sending emails with embedded hyperlinks and telephone numbers contrary to Miss B's stated accessibility needs, and by inappropriately requesting she moderate her tone during a vulnerable period. However, the ombudsman did not uphold complaints about the appointment of replacement law firms or the settlement advice, as these involved independent legal professionals outside ARAG's control. ARAG was ordered to pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that ARAG breached its obligation to handle claims fairly by sending communications that did not comply with Miss B's clearly stated accessibility needs, particularly the June 2025 email with embedded hyperlinks and telephone number. The tone of that email, asking Miss B to moderate her communications or face contact restrictions, was inappropriate given ARAG's knowledge of her disabilities and the stressful circumstances she faced. However, the ombudsman found ARAG acted reasonably in promptly appointing replacement law firms when issues arose, as the policy terms permitted this. The ombudsman could not assess the quality of legal advice provided by the independent law firms, as they are not under ARAG's control and have their own regulators. The ombudsman was entitled to rely on the barrister's advice that the settlement was reasonable in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website