RAC Insurance Limited · DRN-6252478

The complaint Mr and Mrs P complain about how RAC Insurance Limited handled a claim on their roadside assistance policy. What happened Mr and Mrs P’s car broke down whilst they were on holiday abroad. They raised a claim with RAC. RAC weren’t able to repair the car whilst they were away. It then took over two months for their car to be repatriated home. Mr and Mrs P raised a complaint as they were unhappy some of their costs weren’t covered, there were communication issues, they had to book transport and accommodation themselves and about the repatriation delay. RAC upheld Mr and Mrs P’s complaint. They said the claim limit had been reached but agreed the service could have been better. Mr and Mrs P were unhappy with RAC’s response and brought the complaint to this service. Our investigator upheld Mr and Mrs P’s complaint. They thought some of the costs included in the claim limit were unreasonable and thought they should be removed. They also thought the compensation should be increased. RAC appealed. They said they had no control over the third parties they use abroad. They also thought the compensation awarded was too high. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to make a final decision. Because I disagreed with our investigator’s view, I issued a provisional decision in this case. This allowed both RAC and Mr and Mrs P a chance to provide further information or evidence and/or to comment on my thinking before I made my final decision. What I provisionally decided – and why I previously issued a provisional decision on this complaint as my findings were different from that of our investigator. In my provisional decision, I said: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I intend to uphold Mr and Mrs P’s complaint. When considering complaints such as this, I need to consider the relevant law, rules and industry guidelines. The relevant rules, set up by the Financial Conduct Authority, say that an insurer must deal with a claim promptly and fairly. So, I’ve thought about whether RAC acted in line with these requirements with how they handled Mr and Mrs P’s claim. At the outset I acknowledge that I’ve summarised their complaint in far less detail than Mr and Mrs P have, and in my own words. I’m not going to respond to every single point made. No discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. The rules that govern the Financial Ombudsman Service allow me to do this as it’s an informal dispute resolution service. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve overlooked it. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual point to be able

-- 1 of 3 --

to reach an outcome in line with my statutory remit. I’ve separated out the main complaint points below for ease. Claim liability The policy terms and conditions confirm that the policy limit per claim is £2,500. RAC have said they’ve paid out over 3,000 euros and so the limit has already been met. RAC provided a list of their costs. This included €855 for storage. In response to our investigator’s outcome, RAC agreed to remove €274.50 for storage costs from 6 September 2024 onwards. However, they said the limit had still been met. RAC has now confirmed storage was being charged at €18.30. I don’t think RAC have deducted enough. The car wasn’t collected until 18 August 2024. Repatriation was approved on 4 September 2024. This was almost two weeks after Mr and Mrs P had returned home. The car was going to need to be repatriated, and I think RAC should have arranged this sooner to limit costs. So, I don’t think Mr and Mrs P should be liable for any storage costs after 1 September 2024. I think RAC can include 15 days of storage costs within the claim limit. This works out at €274.50. RAC currently have €855 down for storage, so they should reduce this by €580.50. This works out at £501.19. RAC had paid claim costs of £284.16 over the policy limit, so this should be deducted from the refund due. So, I intend to tell RAC to pay Mr and Mrs P an additional £217.03 towards their claim costs. I also intend to tell RAC to pay 8% simple interest on the above refund. Mr and Mrs P have said they were told during calls that as transport and accommodation couldn’t be arranged, they could pay for it and it could be claimed back. I don’t find that this is unreasonable as it is part of the process RAC allows. However, this will only be within the limit of the policy. RAC has said they sent Mr and Mrs P a text message at the start of the claim to confirm there was a limit on the policy. I’m not aware of limit updates being provided during calls with Mr and Mrs P. I’ve thought about whether RAC providing Mr and Mrs P with more information during these calls would have made a difference. Having done so, I don’t think it would. It was during the school summer holidays in a remote area. Mr and Mrs P were experiencing a very difficult situation. In their own testimony, Mr and Mrs P confirmed they only had one option available for accommodation each night. I’m sorry that I’m not able to tell RAC to pay all Mr and Mrs P’s costs, but RAC are able to limit the claim to the policy limit. Compensation RAC have said they don’t feel some of the delays and issues with transport and accommodation should be their responsibility. This is because the third party they use to manage claims abroad doesn’t have any control over the third parties they employ. Whilst I accept they don’t have control over them, I don’t think this means they shouldn’t take some responsibility when they’re unable to help a customer in line with the policy terms and conditions. Mr and Mrs P were left without accommodation or transport. This left their family in a vulnerable situation. Whilst there wasn’t any availability through their approved networks, I think RAC could have done more to help Mr and Mrs P by using options outside of their approved network to arrange accommodation and transport. There were also delays in Mr and Mrs P’s car being returned home to them. Whilst at the point the car was collected, the repatriation was out of RAC’s control to some extent, there were delays in arranging repatriation and think this should have been sorted sooner. The car

-- 2 of 3 --

is Mr and Mrs P’s only vehicle. So, they had the inconvenience of not having it for a significant period when they returned home. I appreciate the above circumstances must have been frustrating for Mr and Mrs P. Although they’re a distilled version of events, I’ve considered everything in the round and I think Mr and Mrs P have been caused considerable distress, upset and worry which has taken a lot of extra effort to sort out over several months. In line with our website guidelines, I don’t think the £200 compensation offered by RAC is enough. I think Based on the circumstances, I intend to tell RAC to increase the compensation by £550 to a total of £750.” I set out what I intended to direct RAC to do to put things right. And gave both parties the opportunity to send me any further information or comments they wanted me to consider before I issued my final decision. Responses to my provisional decision RAC accepted my provisional decision. Mr and Mrs P didn’t respond to the provisional decision by the deadline. 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’ve thought carefully about the provisional decision I reached. Having done so, and as neither party has provided anything which could lead me to depart from my provisional decision, my final decision remains the same as my provisional decision, and for the same reasons. Putting things right To put things right, RAC should do the following: • Pay Mr and Mrs P £217.03 to cover additional claim costs • Pay Mr and Mrs P 8% simple interest* on the above payment, from the date of initial claim settlement to the date of payment. • Pay Mr and Mrs P a total of £750 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. * If RAC considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr and Mrs P how much it has taken off. It should also give Mr and Mrs P a tax deduction certificate if they ask for one, so they can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I uphold this complaint and direct RAC Insurance Limited to put things right by doing as I’ve said above, if they haven’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P and Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Anthony Mullins Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --