Trinity Lane Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6241938

The complaint Mr R has complained about how Trinity Lane Insurance Company Limited handled a claim he made on his motor insurance policy. What happened Mr R was involved in an accident in January 2025 in which a third-party hit his vehicle and drove away before he could take down their details. He made a claim on his motor insurance policy with Trinity, and Trinity agreed to have Mr R’s vehicle repaired. Mr R wanted to use a repairer local to him and Trinity asked him to get a quote. The repairer didn’t have any availability until April 2025 and said the repairs would take around a week. When Mr R enquired about a courtesy vehicle, Trinity didn’t allow one as it said he wasn’t entitled to a courtesy vehicle under the policy if he used his chosen garage. Mr R complained to Trinity in May 2025, and they looked into having his vehicle repaired through their network. The closest one that could repair Mr R’s vehicle was around a two- hour drive away because his vehicle was an import which required specialist paint. But they said they couldn’t guarantee a courtesy vehicle. Mr R referred his complaint to this Service and an Investigator looked into what happened. She upheld the complaint and recommended Trinity settle the claim through Mr R’s own repairer, arrange for a courtesy vehicle under separate cover for the duration of repair, and pay £100 compensation. Trinity agreed to settle the claim through Mr R’s repairer, but said courtesy vehicles are only available through their approved repairer network – they said they could pay £15 per day for loss of use up to a maximum of seven days during the repair period. They didn’t agree compensation was appropriate but said they’d pay £25 as a gesture of good will. They said they could alternatively pay Mr R a cash-in-lieu of repair payment less his policy excess – and that this would allow him to arrange the repair with his chosen repairer at a convenient time, when he’s less reliant on the vehicle. Since Trinity gave these options to try to settle the complaint, it has come to me to decide. I wrote to Mr R about Trinity’s offer, and I told him I’d unlikely uphold the complaint based on what I knew. I said, looking through the evidence available to me, I would likely say Trinity didn’t generally act unfairly when dealing with his claim. In response, Mr R said Trinity didn’t issue a final response letter about his complaint; Trinity didn’t communicate with him again except to pressure him into accepting a 50/50 liability split; Trinity hadn’t handled the claim fairly; it’s incorrect to say he didn’t make it clear to Trinity he cares for disabled family members and he needs a vehicle while his is being repaired; and his vehicle remains unrepaired more than a year after the accident. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 4 --

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 Mr R and Trinity sent us. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be key or central to the complaint. But I’d like to reassure both that I have considered everything submitted. Mr R has complained about how his legal expenses insurer handled his personal injury claim and about how Trinity intends to record the liability for the accident after Mr R came to this Service. I’ve explained to him that I won’t be commenting on those points in my decision – and that this decision will only set out whether I think Trinity handled his motor insurance claim fairly and reasonably up until the point Mr R complained to this Service. This includes whether it was unfair for Trinity to refuse to provide a courtesy vehicle; and whether Trinity progressed the liability aspect of the claim fairly. The repairs The policy says Mr R may be entitled to a courtesy vehicle while his vehicle is being repaired. And that it will depend on the repairs being carried out by one of Trinity’s approved repairers. It isn’t unusual for a policy to only allow a courtesy vehicle when a vehicle is being repaired by a garage in an insurer’s network. From the claim notes I’ve seen, Mr R told Trinity when reporting the claim that he wanted to use his own garage because his vehicle was an import and had special paint. Trinity asked Mr R to send in a quote and images. And Mr R sent these to Trinity a couple of weeks later. Mr R spoke to Trinity again and he said he needed to check if there’s a courtesy vehicle available because he has a disabled wife, so he would need transport while his vehicle was off the road and his repairer was saying repairs would take a week to complete. Trinity said they couldn’t provide a courtesy vehicle. And they said because the other insurer hadn’t accepted liability, a vehicle couldn’t be provided under a credit hire scheme because the third-party would pay for that. Mr R asked if it wouldn’t be better to not authorise the repair until the liability was sorted. He said since someone drove into the back of him then he thought the liability outcome would be straightforward. And Trinity replied that the engineers have confirmed the vehicle is roadworthy, so for his personal circumstances and convenience, if he wanted to postpone repairs until they establish liability, then he was welcome to do that. Mr R replied that it’s okay because the repair shop couldn’t take in the vehicle until April anyway, so it gave him time and he could keep the booking there. From listening to this conversation, I think Trinity clearly explained why Mr R wasn’t entitled to a courtesy vehicle if he used his own repairers. And I’m satisfied Mr R wanted to use his own repairers and that he chose to delay repairs until liability was established. It’s unfortunate that the decision on liability wasn’t confirmed as quickly as Mr R hoped, but I don’t hold Trinity responsible for that – I’ll explain why later in this decision. The policy doesn’t allow Mr R a courtesy vehicle under the policy if he decides to use his own repairer, and he confirmed he would drive his own vehicle until liability would be established, so I don’t think Trinity acted unfairly in refusing to provide a courtesy vehicle up until this point. When the third-party hadn’t accepted liability and a hire vehicle still hadn’t been guaranteed, Mr R raised a complaint with Trinity about not providing him a courtesy vehicle. It was at this point where Trinity considered using an approved repairer. Trinity did find a garage in their network who could look to repair Mr R’s vehicle, but it was a two-hour drive away. When they understood Mr R’s concerns around the courtesy vehicle, they extended their offer to this garage – and said they would supply a courtesy vehicle if it was available. The policy doesn’t say Mr R is entitled to one if it’s available, it says he may be entitled to a

-- 2 of 4 --

courtesy vehicle while his vehicle is being repaired – and that this depends on Trinity agreeing the claim is covered; and the repairs being carried out by one of their approved repairers. So, if Mr R agreed to have his vehicle repaired at Trinity’s recommended garage, he would have been entitled to a courtesy vehicle. I think it would have been unfair of them to refuse one based on availability. So, I have to consider what would have happened had Trinity said a courtesy vehicle would be available. Mr R said he has been unable to proceed because he can’t be without a vehicle for a week, he can’t travel two hours to an approved repairer, and he can’t afford the excess upfront. Mr R has a particularly vulnerable home situation, and I would have expected Trinity to consider whether they were treating Mr R fairly when requesting him to make a four-hour return trip instead of offering to pick up his vehicle. But even if I thought Trinity should have accommodated this, I’m still not persuaded Mr R would have paid his policy excess to move the claim forward. Although I appreciate Mr R’s difficult financial position, Mr R would need to pay his excess on any claim he makes, and waiving the courtesy vehicle excess isn’t something Trinity has to accommodate under the policy either – the policy specifically says Mr R will need to pay this. I appreciate Mr R feels he was sold the policy on the basis that he would be paying a lower excess, but his policy schedule says his excess is £400, so I wouldn’t expect Trinity to allow Mr R to pay less than this. If Mr R thinks the policy was mis-sold, he would need to speak to his broker as Trinity weren’t responsible for selling him the policy. Although I think Trinity were incorrect about whether a courtesy vehicle should have been offered regardless of its availability at the recommended repairer, I’ve set out why I still don’t think the claim would have been settled had they told Mr R they would arrange one. And Trinity have generally acted reasonably in trying to repair Mr R’s vehicle otherwise. Trinity have now offered Mr R a third option, which is to pay him a cash-in lieu amount so he can repair his vehicle in his own time. And Trinity have said Mr R can still use his own repairer without being entitled a courtesy vehicle, or have their recommended repairers repair the vehicle. But if he agrees to the latter option, I would expect Trinity to act fairly when considering Mr R’s situation and to provide a courtesy vehicle in line with the policy terms. It’s up to Mr R to make a choice, and I won’t be directing Trinity to take any specific action. Did Trinity progress Mr R’s claim fairly? Trinity have an obligation to handle claims promptly and fairly. I’ve considered whether they have caused any unnecessary or unavoidable delays when dealing with Mr R’s claim. I’ve looked through the correspondence available, and I see between when the claim happened and when Mr R came to this Service, Trinity often chased the third-party for information – but the third-party insurer passed on false statements, asked for information in different formats, or sometimes simply didn’t respond at all. There may have been delays to Mr R’s claim, but I don’t think I can reasonably say Trinity were to blame for these – and I can see Trinity chased the third-party insurer when they didn’t receive what they asked for. I appreciate Mr R may have let Trinity know about his home situation, and I was sorry to hear about how seeing the damage to his vehicle made his wife feel unsafe. But from what I’ve seen and heard, Trinity was generally trying to progress the claim in a way that accommodates Mr R’s needs. It was Mr R’s choice to delay repairs until he would be guaranteed a hire vehicle through the third-party if they were found at fault. And I appreciate Trinity didn’t contact Mr R as often as he would have liked, but I’ve seen from the policy documents Trinity have set out that they try to sort out a policyholder’s claim with as little paperwork as possible, and I wouldn’t have expected them to contact Mr R about liability unnecessarily if they didn’t have an update from the third party.

-- 3 of 4 --

Mr R is concerned he wasn’t given a final response to his complaint. I don’t think Trinity not sending a response has made any significant impact on Mr R. He was entitled to refer his complaint to this Service after eight weeks had passed, and he did so when he hadn’t heard from Trinity. My final decision For the reasons above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Andrew Wakatsuki-Robinson Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --