Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-5964210

The complaint Miss H and Mr N have complained about how Aviva Insurance Limited handled a claim they made on their motor insurance policy. Where I refer to Aviva below, this includes actions of their agents. What happened Miss H and Mr N’s vehicle was involved in an accident in September 2025, and they raised a claim under their motor insurance policy, which Aviva accepted. Aviva’s recommended repairer couldn’t begin repairs for some time and Miss H and Mr N weren’t provided a courtesy car. They continued to drive their own vehicle. About a week after the claim was raised, Miss H and Mr N contacted Aviva when a service light came on in the vehicle warning them about the need for an oil change. After this, Miss H was driving on a dual carriageway when unfortunately, the vehicle’s bonnet lifted up, shattering the windscreen and obstructing Mr N and Miss H’s view. Miss H and Mr N complained to Aviva that their failure to provide a courtesy car led to the second accident happening. Aviva responded to the complaint, saying their engineer had told Miss H and Mr N the vehicle wasn’t safe to drive. And that they weren’t entitled to a courtesy car until repairs were being done. Aviva did acknowledge that their internal systems had initially recorded the vehicle as ‘mobile’ where it should have been ‘immobile’ – and offered £100 compensation for this. After Miss H and Mr N referred the complaint to this Service, an Investigator looked into what happened. He said he can’t hold Aviva accountable for the car being driven when the bonnet wasn’t secure. Miss H and Mr N didn’t agree – they said Aviva acknowledged an error in stating the car was driveable. And that Miss H and Mr N relied on that advice, which directly led to the bonnet flipping open at high speed, causing physical injury and emotional distress. The complaint couldn’t be resolved, so it has come to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As ours is an informal service, I’m not going to comment on every point or piece of evidence Miss H and Mr N and Aviva sent us. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be key or central to the complaint. But I’d like to reassure the parties that I have considered everything submitted. Miss H and Mr N’s policy says if the provision of a courtesy car is available, the insurer’s recommended repairers will provide one while that repairer fixes their vehicle. A policyholder being provided a courtesy car only while their car is being repaired due to a claim is common in many motor insurance policies and I don’t find it unusual. From what I understand, the approved repairer was to begin repairs on 7 October 2025 – and that a courtesy car would be available from that date. Miss H and Mr N felt that Aviva should have provided one earlier

-- 1 of 2 --

than this. But, according to the policy, they are only entitled to one once repairs are underway – and if available. So, I don’t think it was unreasonable for Aviva to not have provided one earlier when there wasn’t one available at the recommended repairer. The engineer’s report from after the second accident said the bonnet was only being held down with tape and not secure in it’s locks, so it was inevitable it was going to come up from being driven. I don’t think, in hindsight, it’s in dispute the vehicle shouldn’t have been driven for long distances and the engineer’s report confirmed this. The vehicle was driven for more than 1,200 miles after the first accident. Aviva said with the bonnet visibly unsafe to drive, the repairer would have made Miss H and Mr N aware of it. And the repairer has since told Aviva they verbally advised the vehicle should not be driven, specifically at high speeds, due to the front-end damage and the bonnet being held down with tape. But that they didn’t provide it in writing. Miss H and Mr N had initially said Aviva told them the process to arrange a courtesy car could take up to a week. Then later said Aviva’s actions and failures amount to negligence which resulted in avoidable harm. Having read through the evidence available, I think it’s more-likely-than-not Aviva did tell Miss H and Mr N not to drive the vehicle in its current state for long distances. But even if they didn’t explicitly tell Miss H and Mr N not to drive, I don’t think I can fairly hold Aviva responsible for the accident involving the bonnet. Miss H and Mr N have a responsibility to ensure their vehicle is safe to drive. And even if they were told their vehicle was okay to drive for short distances, I think a reasonable person would have understood it was unsafe to do so for long distances or at speed considering the state the vehicle was in. Aviva said they marked Miss H and Mr N’s vehicle as mobile instead of immobile on their report. I don’t think Miss H and Mr N will have known about this in the lead up to the accident, but I understand how learning about this error will have been distressing. I think the £100 compensation Aviva offered is appropriate in the circumstances – so I’m directing them to pay this. My final decision For the reasons above, I direct Aviva Insurance Limited to pay Miss H and Mr N the £100 compensation they offered in their complaint response letter if they haven’t done already. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss H and Mr N to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Andrew Wakatsuki-Robinson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --