UK Insurance Limited · DRN-5991551

The complaint Mr D says U K Insurance Limited (‘UKI’) acted unfairly in settling a claim he made on his motor insurance policy, causing him financial loss, and that it also caused delay by not progressing the claim properly. What happened Mr B had an accident in October 2023. It seems that after parking his car on a road, he opened the driver’s door slightly and there was an impact with a passing car. He says it was speeding and was too close to his car. The passengers in Mr D’s car weren’t classed as independent witnesses and no independent camera footage was available. The other driver said Mr D was wholly at fault, and he told UKI she was 100% to blame. UKI held the other driver fully at fault and in December 2024 it instructed external solicitors to take legal action. But in August 2025 the legal firm advised Mr D that he should accept the split liability settlement offer that had been made by the other insurer. Mr D told UKI later that he felt he was pushed into accepting it and that UKI hadn’t done enough to fight for him. Mr D complained to UKI about the huge impact of the fault claim on his premium and the loss of his long-held maximum no claims discount (‘NCD’). He said he wasn’t advised about the consequences of accepting the settlement. And he said he’d suffered much undue stress during the very lengthy time it took to settle the claim. UKI accepted it was slow to get the file to the solicitors, which in turn had delayed the claim’s settlement. It offered Mr D £50 for that initially, and in October 2025 it reconsidered its offer and proposed a further £200. Meanwhile, Mr D had complained to us in September 2025 and one of our Investigators later reviewed his complaint. He said the increased compensation offer was fair, as he didn’t think the delay caused by UKI had affected the outcome of the claim. In the Investigator’s opinion, UKI had looked at the available evidence and had tried to assist Mr D by instructing a legal firm to act on his behalf. Mr D said the solicitors didn’t like the idea of going to court - and that the other driver’s car had much more damage to it than he could possibly have caused. The Investigator pointed out that we can’t make decisions about liability and that we’re limited to looking at whether an insurer has acted reasonably. He thought UKI had done so, but he said Mr D could consider making a complaint about the legal firm. As there was no agreement, the complaint was passed to me for review. 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 the Investigator has explained, we can’t decide who is to blame for an accident, as that’s the role of the courts. We’re limited to reviewing whether an insurer has acted reasonably. In this case, UKI considered the version of events provided by each driver. I think some insurers would have decided then that the best way forward was to try to settle the case with

-- 1 of 2 --

liability split between them. That’s because there were factors that indicated both drivers could be held partly at fault, and no clear independent evidence. And the other insurer had proposed a 50:50 liability split in October 2024. Despite that, UKI went to the expense of instructing solicitors to start legal proceedings. The solicitors reviewed the evidence, and the other insurer told it about its settlement proposal. The solicitors’ opinion was that it wouldn’t be prudent to try to argue in court that Mr D wasn’t partly to blame for what had happened. I think it was reasonable for UKI to take advice on that issue from a firm that specialises in litigation and has knowledge and experience of similar cases in court. UKI told the solicitors that any proposed settlement would have to be discussed with Mr D, and I think it was their responsibility to ensure he understood the consequences of the settlement. If Mr D thinks he was coerced into it, or badly advised, he can complain to the legal firm and to its ombudsman / regulator. I don’t think it’s surprising that Mr D experienced great frustration and upset due to the excessive time it took to settle the claim. He’d had to complain previously to UKI about delay and poor contact, which it had accepted and for which it had compensated him. But the delays continued. I think the situation was made even worse for Mr D due to his personal circumstances - especially his wife’s poor health. The last thing he needed was more stress. Having said that, I think UKI did all it could reasonably do to assist Mr D. I don’t think the delay affected the outcome of the claim, and in my opinion the £250 it has offered him in total for this complaint is reasonable in terms of the distress and inconvenience he faced. Mr D says his NCD was impacted hugely by the claim, when he’d had a clear claims history for over 50 years. He says his premium more than tripled and is unaffordable. I’m assuming Mr D looked around for cover at renewal, as UKI may not have been the most affordable option at the time. Either way, I can imagine how upsetting the situation must be for him. In the documents provided to us by UKI for the 2023-2024 policy, the ‘step back’ reduction in NCD years for one claim (with protected NCD) is shown as zero. As Mr D had paid for his NCD to be protected, I think it would be worth checking that with UKI in case an error was made. But regardless of the NCD, the basis for the rise in premium is likely to be the impact of the fault claim, and I can’t say UKI acted unreasonably by recording that claim as fault. Although I sympathise with Mr D, given the position he’s found himself in, I don’t think he’s shown that UKI acted unreasonably - except in relation to the issues for which it has offered compensation. I know he’ll be disappointed, but in my opinion, it wouldn’t be fair to uphold any other issue, or to require UKI to increase the compensation it has already proposed. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require U K Insurance Limited to pay Mr D £250 in total for distress and inconvenience. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Susan Ewins Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --