Haven Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6141434

The complaint Company C has complained through its director Mr P about the service it received from its commercial vehicle insurer, Haven Insurance Company Limited. The complaint was brought to us by a representative of C’s and Mr P’s, but for ease I will refer to their comments as Mr P’s. What happened In November 2023, C took out an insurance policy with Haven. In May 2024 Mr P was contacted by the police and told that he had been driving whilst uninsured and had to attend court. Mr P contacted the broker he had taken C’s policy out through who told him that there was a valid policy with Haven and that the car he had been driving was insured under that policy. Mr P asked Haven to write to the authority prosecuting the case to confirm there was a valid policy, but Haven mistakenly issued correspondence saying there was no valid policy. The initial court date was postponed for Mr P to provide additional evidence. He said his representative, Mr H, had to make numerous calls and send a number of emails to Haven to ensure it provided accurate information. Ultimately Haven confirmed that there was a valid policy and the charge was dropped, nevertheless, by that point Mr P had been through months of stress and anxiety. He said if he had been convicted, this would have impacted C as a business. Mr P said that on the days he had to attend court, C had to employ someone to manage the business in his place and incurred a £380 loss in terms of wages it had to pay out. He also said C paid for Mr H to handle the court case and also wanted to be compensated for his fees. Mr P asked Haven to reimburse C for the additional expenses it incurred as a result of its error. Haven accepted that an error had been made but it didn’t pay the additional expenses C claimed for and said it hadn’t been provided with enough evidence in support. Specifically, it said it had seen no evidence in support of the additional wages paid and that it had seen no evidence of any court attendances or any contract between C and Mr H. C then brought its complaint to our service and asked for a full reimbursement as well as compensation. One of our investigators reviewed the complaint and ultimately decided that Haven should: • Pay C £500 compensation for the inconvenience caused. • Reimburse C for Mr H’s fees for preparing and attending court but not for bringing its

-- 1 of 4 --

complaint to our service. • Pay C £380 for employing a manager to cover Mr P’s post when he had to attend court. Mr P accepted our investigator’s view. Haven didn’t respond but previously indicated that it would be happy to pay the additional costs but wasn’t satisfied with the quality of the evidence provided in support of those claims. It said it found that Mr P’s version of events, including key dates, was inconsistent. It also didn’t consider the invoices to be proportionate or to have been properly evidenced. It agreed with the £500 compensation which it said it would proceed to pay. As there was no resolution, the matter was passed to me to decide. Before I proceeded with my decision I clarified to the parties via the investigator that the amounts that our investigator had awarded in terms of the representative’s fees were £1,100 for two court attendances. I also clarified that Haven was not expected to reimburse any fees for bringing C’s complaint to our service or for raising a complaint with Haven. C’s representative responded and said Mr P was happy with the above as long as the additional redress awarded by the investigator was still going to be awarded. Haven did not respond by the deadline set by our investigator. 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. Haven accepts that it made an error and that C’s policy didn’t appear as valid on external databases, which ultimately led to Mr P having to attend court twice. Mr P, on C’s behalf, said Haven should pay compensation for the inconvenience this caused C. Our investigator considered £500 to be a fair amount in all the circumstances, taking into account the length of time the matter remained unresolved and the steps C had to take to obtain a letter of indemnity and prepare for court. I agree with that assessment. I appreciate that Mr P described experiencing significant distress, but because the complaint is brought on behalf of C, I cannot award compensation for his personal distress. And as C is a company rather than an individual, it cannot experience distress itself, though it can be inconvenienced. Haven has already agreed to pay £500 and, in light of that, I see no reason to revisit this aspect of the complaint. What remains is for me to decide whether the remaining losses claimed by C are reasonable and whether they are supported by evidence, which is Haven’s main objection to paying them. The representative Haven questioned the qualifications and the capacity in which C’s representative, Mr H, dealt with the court proceedings. It asked whether he is legally qualified or regulated in any other capacity. Mr P said Mr H is not a lawyer but has represented him for many years, mainly due to the fact that English isn’t Mr P’s first language. I haven’t seen a formal contract as requested by Haven but I don’t think, in the specific circumstances, that this was necessary. It is for C to decide whether it wishes to engage Mr H’s services regardless of his

-- 2 of 4 --

professional qualifications. But I accept that if Haven is to reimburse C for those costs they should be properly evidenced and justified. We’ve been provided with copies of the court summonses sent to Mr P in relation to driving without insurance. The first was sent in May 2024 and requested his attendance in court in August 2024. The second was sent in October 2024 stating the case had previously been adjourned and that a hearing would take place in December 2024. I don’t think Haven doubts the authenticity of these summonses. Mr H has also been able to supply confirmation of the case being adjourned to October 2024. Mr H provided two invoices in relation to his work on the court case. The first invoice is dated November 2024 and is for £550 for a court attendance in November 2024. Mr H confirmed that the date of this invoice was incorrect and should have said October 2024. As I said above, he also provided evidence that the case was originally adjourned to October 2024 and not November 2024. The second invoice is dated December 2024 and is for a court attendance on the same month. It is again for £550. Although the invoices contain minor date inaccuracies, the supporting evidence (summonses and adjournment confirmation) makes it more likely than not that two hearings occurred. And this is because the first one was adjourned because according to Mr H, Haven initially failed to provide a letter of indemnity, something I don’t think Haven denies. It follows that I think it is fair and reasonable that Haven compensates C for Mr H’s fees for attending those hearings. Furthermore, ultimately Mr H was able to secure a positive result for C and had C employed a legal professional instead, it is likely it would have had to pay legal fees in any event. So, though Mr H isn’t legally qualified I think it is fair and reasonable in the specific circumstances that Haven reimburses C for his fees. C also provided two further invoices for Mr H’s services: one for bringing C’s complaint to our service and another for preparing the complaint to Haven. I don’t think Haven needs to reimburse C for those charges. We are a free service and can assist anyone who wishes to bring a complaint to us at no cost. Raising a complaint with an insurer can be done simply for example by email or telephone, so I don’t consider it necessary for C to have incurred representative fees for that purpose. C and Mr P accept this, so I don’t need to consider those fees any further. Wages In relation to the wages, I’ve taken Haven’s concern into account, but overall I’m satisfied that C did incur additional staffing costs because Mr P had to attend court twice. Haven accepts that the two attendances were a direct result of its own failings, including its initial error in confirming cover and the delay in issuing a letter of indemnity. C has provided a wage slip for £380 for the relevant period. While I accept the documentation could have been clearer, I don’t think that prevents me from making a finding. It’s likely that, as a small business, C needed someone to cover Mr P’s duties on the days he was required to be in court. Given that the need for cover arose solely because of Haven’s admitted error, and bearing in mind the modest amount claimed, I think it is fair and reasonable that Haven reimburses C for this cost.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision For the reasons above I have decided to uphold this complaint. Haven Insurance Company Limited must: • Pay C £500 compensation for the inconvenience it caused it. • Reimburse C for Mr H’s fees for attending court which came to a total of £1,100. It must also pay 8% interest per year simple on this amount from the date those fees were paid by C to the date it pays it back. • Reimburse C the £380 it paid by way of wages while Mr P had to attend court. It must also pay 8% interest per year simple from the date the wages were paid to the date it pays it back. Haven Insurance Company Limited must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it Mr P on C’s behalf accepts my final decision. If it pays later than this it must also pay interest on it from the deadline date for settlement to the date of payment at 8% a year simple. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask C to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Anastasia Serdari Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --