Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-5986344

The complaint Mr G has complained about how Aviva Insurance Limited (Aviva) handled a claim he made on his motor insurance policy. What happened In June 2025, Mr G was unfortunately involved in an accident. Mr G said, he was approaching a roundabout and the third-party car in front of him stopped in the keep-clear box. He said he thinks the third-party acted negligently by blocking the box which resulted in him hitting the third-party car in the rear. Aviva said it accepted liability and recorded this as a fault claim against the policy. Mr G complained to Aviva because he didn’t think he was fully responsible for the accident. Aviva responded, explaining that it felt it had acted fairly and reasonably within the terms and conditions of the policy. Mr G remained dissatisfied and bought his complaint to this Service. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said they were satisfied Aviva had acted fairly and in line with the terms of the policy. Mr G didn’t agree, so his complaint has been passed to me to make a decision. 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. Having done so, I have decided not to uphold Mr G’s complaint. I’ll now explain why. Firstly, I acknowledge I’ve summarised Mr G’s complaint in less detail than he’s set out. Mr G has raised several reasons why he’s unhappy with the way Aviva has handled this matter. I’ve not commented on each and every point he’s raised. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I consider to be the key points I need to think about. I don’t mean any discourtesy by this, it simply reflects the informal nature of this Service. I appreciate Mr G has strong views about his claim. But I should first set out that it isn’t the role of this Service to decide who was responsible for an accident. This is something that can only be determined by a court of law. Instead, I must decide whether Aviva has acted fairly – as required under relevant regulatory rules – and in line with the terms and conditions of his motor insurance policy when handling and settling his claim as it did. The policy terms confirm Aviva has the right to conduct, defend, or settle any claim as it sees fit. This means Aviva may reach a decision its policyholder doesn’t agree with. But in reaching its decision, Aviva must consider any relevant evidence during its investigation. And make its decision based on that evidence. Aviva said, in its experience, it wouldn’t have a strong defence if it contested the liability

-- 1 of 2 --

in the courts given the circumstances of the accident – that Mr G hit the third party in the rear. And so, it made the decision to accept liability. As explained above, it isn’t for this Service to make a finding on liability. But what is clear from the evidence is that Mr G was behind the third party he collided with, and so Aviva said there is greater onus on Mr G to ensure the roundabout was clear before entering it. Aviva said the dashcam footage Mr G provided demonstrated there was insufficient space when he entered the roundabout. Aviva is entitled to make a commercial decision on whether to take the matter to the courts. But it will make this decision based on what it considers its likelihood is of being able to successfully defend the case. It has experience of how courts view such matters and the likelihood of success in pursuing a legal case, so I’m persuaded it took this into account when reaching its decision. In the circumstances, I don’t think it was unreasonable for Aviva to conclude Mr G was likely liable for the accident and therefore accept liability for the accident on his behalf. I’ve considered all of Mr G’s comments – in particular, he feels Aviva accepted liability prematurely and didn’t take into account the terms of the Highway Code. Aviva said it took all of this into account including the dashcam footage evidence Mr G provided, when reaching a conclusion on liability. Aviva said after completing a review, it referred the matter to its solicitors. This is what I would expect it to do. But following advice from its solicitors, Aviva continued to accept liability for the claim, which it is entitled to do so under the policy terms, and I don’t find it unreasonable it did so. I know Mr G feels strongly about having a fault claim recorded against him. But it’s important to explain that when insurers record a claim, the categorisation is based on whether the insurer is able to recover the costs it incurred on the claim. It doesn't necessarily reflect the actual circumstances of the accident or who was to blame for an accident. While the term “fault” or “non-fault” is commonly used to describe a claim, the actual terminology is “no claim bonus (NCB) allowed’ or “NCB disallowed”. With “NCB allowed” meaning an insurer has been able to recover its costs in full, from another party and with “NCB disallowed” meaning the insurer hasn’t been able to recover its costs in full, from another party. This is standard industry practice. As Aviva has incurred an outlay on the claim, it wasn’t unreasonable that it recorded the claim as NCB disallowed. In light of the above, I don't think Aviva acted unfairly in the way it's handled Mr G’s claim. So, I won’t require Aviva to do anything more than pay the £100 compensation it has already offered for the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr G, if it hasn’t already done so. I find this offer to be fair and reasonable. My final decision Aviva Insurance Limited has already made an offer to pay Mr G £100 compensation. I find this offer to be fair. So I require Aviva Insurance Limited to pay £100 compensation to Mr G, for the distress and inconvenience, if it hasn’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Lorraine Ball Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --