Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Watford Insurance Company Europe Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained about how Watford Insurance handled his motor insurance claim following an April 2024 accident where liability was disputed. Watford initially failed to pursue recovery from the third-party insurer, leading Mr G to instruct a solicitor who successfully obtained an admission of liability. Mr G subsequently complained about the loss of his no claims discount at renewal, a higher premium, and Watford's refusal to cover his solicitor's costs. The ombudsman found that while Watford's failure to pursue the TPI further caused frustration warranting the £200 compensation already paid, the claim would likely not have been resolved before renewal even with better handling, making the premium increase a natural consequence of the claim rather than poor handling. The ombudsman rejected claims for additional compensation regarding the no claims discount, premium refund, and solicitor's costs.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Watford failed to pursue the TPI further after receiving no initial response, causing frustration and upset warranting the £200 compensation already paid, this did not result in direct financial loss. Regarding the no claims discount and premium, the ombudsman determined that even with more active handling, claims of this nature typically take several months to resolve, and it was common industry practice to record claims as 'bonus disallowed' until costs were recovered. Since Mr G did not provide the admission of liability to Watford until after renewal, the claim would likely still have been recorded as 'bonus disallowed' at renewal time. The ombudsman found Watford's premium calculation used correct information and that differences between Watford's pricing and other insurers' quotes do not indicate unfair treatment. Regarding solicitor's costs, the ombudsman found Watford was not made aware of the solicitor's appointment until after the work was completed, so it had no opportunity to take further steps itself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website