Society of Lloyd's · DRN-6099794

The complaint A limited company, which I have referred to as S, complains about Society of Lloyd's handling of a claim made on its commercial motor insurance policy. What happened The following is intended only as a summary of events. References to Society of Lloyd's includes its underwriters and agents. S is a freight transport business and had a commercial motor insurance policy with Society of Lloyd's. In September 2024, Society of Lloyd's was notified of a claim being made against S by a third party. I have referred to the third party and its insurer collectively as TP. Society of Lloyd's informed S, who responded denying involvement in the incident. Society of Lloyd's disputed the claim with TP and asked for its evidence to support there being a valid claim. Communications continued between Society of Lloyd's and TP over the following months – although no significant evidence was provided by TP. However, S was not kept informed of any of this. In June 2025, S’s policy was due to expire and it was at this point that it discovered that the claim remained open. S complained about this and the impact it was having on its premium. Society of Lloyd's apologised for not keeping S updated and offered £200 compensation. It also agreed to record the claim as “non-fault” and “No Claims Discount Allowed”. This reduced the premium Society of Lloyd's was willing to offer for renewal, but S remained unsatisfied. I understand S took out a different policy with a different insurer, but feels the situation has caused the price of that policy to be around £3,500 higher than it otherwise would be. S brought its complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, but our Investigator did not recommend that it be upheld. He thought it was clear that TP was still pursuing the claim even though Society of Lloyd's had disputed it on S’s behalf. And that, by recording the claim as it did, Society of Lloyd's had acted appropriately at the time S complained. He agreed that Society of Lloyd's ought to have communicated better, but felt the £200 offered was appropriate compensation for this. S remained unsatisfied and its complaint has been passed to me for 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 am not upholding this complaint. I’ve explained why below. Firstly, I will just repeat that the above is only a summary. Both parties have provided detailed submissions. But I have not commented on each of the points made. This is not intended as a discourtesy, but rather reflects the informal nature of the Financial

-- 1 of 3 --

Ombudsman. I do note that S has said that the issue is not only that communication between Society of Lloyd's and TP continued, but also about the other actions of Society of Lloyd's in dealing with the claim – such as the evidence it gathered. However, as Society of Lloyd's explained to S in June 2025, without images from TP for comparison, an inspection of S’s vehicle would be unlikely to be conclusive. I note that S’s vehicle had apparently suffered damage a couple of days prior to the alleged incident with TP. Similarly, it isn’t clear dashcam footage would still have been available or would have shown anything relevant even if Society of Lloyd's had acted quicker in notifying S. I do think Society of Lloyd's ought to have been more proactive in terms of the claim. Whilst it was clear it disputing the claim and had repeatedly requested evidence, a claim cannot remain open indefinitely on a policyholder’s record merely because the third party continues to communicate – but not provide any evidence. That said, where a third party is clearly actively pursuing a claim, an insurer cannot immediately close it. I appreciate Society of Lloyd's (or at least the specific underwriter) has a policy of keeping claims open for 12 months from the date of the last communication from the third party. But it might be appropriate for the specific circumstances to be taken into account when applying this policy. However, I do not think this would change anything in terms of this complaint. Given the active communication from TP and the timeline involved, I don’t consider Society of Lloyd's ought to have marked the claim closed prior to June 2025. So, it is fair and reasonable that it was still showing as open at the point of renewal. Additionally, Society of Lloyd's took steps to record the situation reasonably favourably in June 2025; by recording the claim as non-fault and allowing the no claims discount. Ultimately, a claim had been made so – although Society of Lloyd's had not (at that time) paid any settlement – recording this as a claim was appropriate. Given Society of Lloyd's was disputing the claim, it is also appropriate that it was recorded as non-fault. And by allowing the no claims discount, this protected the associated reduction in premium. I am unable to comment on the premium charged by the insurer S ultimately went with. But I consider Society of Lloyd's actions here to be appropriate. So, I don’t consider Society of Lloyd's to be responsible for any financial loss. I do recognise that discovering there was still an open claim, after around nine months without any update, would have been distressing for the director of S. However, the complainant in this case is S itself. As a limited company, S cannot experience distress or frustration. S can experience inconvenience. But I don’t consider there to have been significant avoidable inconvenience caused to S by Society of Lloyd's actions. And I consider the £200 offered by Society of Lloyd's to be appropriate compensation for the identified failings. Ultimately, whilst I appreciate this outcome will not be welcomed by S or its director, I do not consider it fair or reasonable to require Society of Lloyd's to do anything more in the circumstances of this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask S to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Sam Thomas Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --