Partially upheld: claims handling, hire car provision, valuation, customer service complaint against One Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained about One Insurance's handling of a motor insurance claim following a motorway accident where his car was deemed a total loss. He sought compensation for the denial of a hire car, poor customer service including delays and unclear communications, and alleged undervaluation of his vehicle. One Insurance had internally classified the claim as non-fault by 28 January 2025 but declined to provide a hire car, arguing non-fault status required third-party liability acceptance. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding One Insurance should have provided a hire car based on its own non-fault classification and the policy wording, and that customer service failures warranted compensation. The valuation of £22,980 was upheld as fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that One Insurance's own case notes established non-fault circumstances by 28 January 2025, just four days after the incident, demonstrating the firm had confidence in cost recoverability. The policy wording was insufficiently clear to justify declining hire car provision once the claim was internally classified as non-fault. Although One Insurance later argued this classification was premature, the policy did not define non-fault claims as requiring third-party acceptance of liability. The valuation of £22,980 reflected the highest trade guide value and was fair and reasonable. However, service failures including unclear chat responses and failure to reimburse the £34 transport receipt warranted compensation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website