DRN-6142373

The complaint Miss W complains that her motor insurer, Advantage Insurance Company Limited (‘Advantage’), failed to stop a car hire company (‘E’) from pursuing her for damage it alleges she caused to one of its hire vehicles. All references to Advantage include its agents. What happened In March 2025, Miss W was involved in a road traffic accident. She made a claim on her policy with Advantage and was provided with a replacement car through E while her own vehicle was being repaired. When she returned the replacement car, E told her that damage had been identified and that repairs would cost £384.70. Miss W denied causing any damage. In July 2025, Miss W complained to E. She maintained she wasn’t responsible for any damage to the hire vehicle and suggested that, if damage had occurred, it could have happened while the car was parked and not under her control. She explained that the situation was causing her significant anxiety, that she suffered from depression, and that she was on a low income. She asked E to stop all demands for payment. E responded that it had discussed the matter with Advantage and considered Miss W liable under its terms and conditions. It said photographs taken when she collected the vehicle showed no pre-existing damage and that, unless she could provide evidence to the contrary, it would continue to pursue the alleged debt. Advantage issued its response in August 2025 but didn’t uphold Miss W’s complaint. It said E had investigated and confirmed there was no pre-existing damage, and that it was most likely that the damage occurred while the replacement car was in Miss W’s possession. Miss W then brought her complaint to our service. She said Advantage failed to protect her by preventing E from contacting her directly, despite being aware of her vulnerability. She explained that E attempted to take funds from her account on three occasions without authorisation, and that these attempts only failed because she had frozen her card. As a result, she felt forced to withdraw cash to manage her living expenses. She wanted Advantage to take ownership of the dispute, ensure no negative impact on her credit file, and stop any further contact from debt-collection agencies. She also sought compensation for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.

-- 1 of 4 --

Miss W added that Advantage failed to make reasonable adjustments in light of her circumstances. She said that despite requesting written-only communication several times, she continued to receive telephone calls. While the complaint was with our service, Advantage said it wasn’t responsible for E’s actions and that E was entitled to pursue Miss W for the repair costs under its terms and conditions. Advantage also explained that although the replacement car was provided and insured under the policy, the damage wasn’t covered because the cost of repairs was below Miss W’s £695 excess. As a result, E was pursuing her directly. Advantage said it asked E to pause collection activity in November 2025, and a four-week hold was put in place. One of our investigators reviewed the complaint but didn’t think Advantage was required to take further action and didn’t consider that it was responsible for E’s actions in pursuing the alleged debt from Miss W. Our investigator added that Advantage added a support flag on Miss W’s policy to ensure her vulnerable circumstances were taken into account when communicating with her. Our investigator considered this to be fair and reasonable. Miss W disagreed and asked for an ombudsman’s decision. She said Advantage only applied a support flag recognising her vulnerability, months after she first raised the complaint, and only after repeated unwanted contact—including further telephone calls. The matter was then passed 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. I’d like to begin by saying I’m sorry to hear about the impact this situation has had on Miss W, and how difficult it has been for her to deal with. Miss W has raised a number of points she wanted us to take into consideration when looking at her complaint. I want to reassure her that I have considered everything she raised. In this decision, however, I focus on the points I consider most relevant to reaching a fair and reasonable outcome. No discourtesy is intended by this. We aim for our decisions to be as concise and to the point as possible. Miss W has optional “replacement car” cover as part of her motor insurance policy with Advantage. Under this cover, she is entitled to a replacement car while her own vehicle is being repaired. The replacement car is automatically insured at no additional cost under her existing policy and is subject to the insurer’s terms and conditions, as well as the usual policy terms. E has its own terms and conditions, which state that unless it caused the damage, the renter — in this case Miss W — is responsible for any damage identified. Advantage said that E’s decision to pursue Miss W for the repair costs arises from the hire agreement and is therefore a matter between Miss W and E, rather than something Advantage can control. It also provided evidence which shows that Miss W agreed to E’s

-- 2 of 4 --

terms and conditions at the time when she hired the car and that she was made aware of the fact that if there was any damage to the hire car which wasn’t caused by E, she would be held responsible for it. Advantage also said that E checked the car before the hire period started and also after it was returned by Miss W. E said the damage to the car was not there when it delivered the car to Miss W and so it held her responsible for it. The essence of the complaint is that Miss W believes Advantage, as her insurer, should have intervened when E pursued her for the repair costs. Advantage disagrees. It says it isn’t responsible for E’s actions because no claim was made on Miss W’s policy for the hire-car damage, as the repair cost was below her excess. Advantage also does not consider this aspect of her complaint to relate to a regulated activity, as the hire vehicle and E’s attempts to recover costs, arise from a separate hire agreement between Miss W and E. Overall, I don’t think Advantage is responsible for E’s decision to pursue what it considers to be a valid debt, or for the way E has chosen to pursue it, including attempts to take payments from Miss W’s account. On balance I think that the matter stems from the hire agreement, which is a separate contract between Miss W and E. Given this, I also don’t think it was for Advantage to determine whether Miss W caused the damage — that remains a matter under her separate contract with E. I also think it is fair and reasonable that there was no claim for the damage to the replacement car under Miss W’s policy bearing in mind the cost of the repairs was lower than the policy excess. For the same reasons I don’t think Advantage had an obligation to intervene when E was pursuing Miss W for the alleged debt. Advantage did, however, ask E to pause its collection activity. In the circumstances, I think this was a fair and reasonable step for it to take, even though it wasn’t obliged to intervene. Miss W said Advantage failed to make reasonable adjustments for her vulnerability, despite being aware of her personal circumstances. When considering whether Advantage has acted fairly and reasonably, I’m required to consider a number of things including relevant law. And as it’s relevant to this complaint I have taken the Equality Act 2010 (‘the Act’) into account. But it’s not for our service to make any finding about whether Advantage has breached the Act, that’s the role of the Courts. Miss W said that although she repeatedly requested written-only communication, she continued to receive telephone calls from Advantage. Advantage told us that Miss W first requested written-only communication in July 2025, and that it applied a support flag in August 2025 to reflect her circumstances and preferences. Nevertheless, it accepted one call was made in August 2025 to introduce a new handler. After Miss W reiterated her preference, the handler complied. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that a request for written only communication was made before July 2025 and I also note that there were numerous inbound calls to Advantage from Miss W prior to July 2025, in relation to the original claim. So I understand why Advantage

-- 3 of 4 --

may have considered calling Miss W until she specifically asked it not to. Although I appreciate the August 2025 call may have caused Miss W some distress, I don’t think this single instance amounts to unfair treatment or justifies compensation. I appreciate Miss W will be disappointed with my decision and I know that she feels strongly that she has been treated unfairly by Advantage and by E. My role is to consider whether Advantage acted fairly and reasonably as Miss W’s insurer. Based on all the evidence, I don’t think it acted in a way that was unfair or unreasonable. My final decision For the reasons above, I have decided not to uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss W to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Anastasia Serdari Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --