UK Insurance Limited · DRN-5971780

The complaint Mr N is complaining about how UK Insurance Limited trading as Churchill Car Insurance (UKI) dealt with a claim on his motor insurance policy. What happened Mr N’s car was damaged in an accident with a third party’s vehicle whilst he was parked outside his home. The driver of the other vehicle fled the scene of the accident. Mr N contacted UKI to claim for the damage on his car and provided the door camera footage. As the driver didn’t stop, Mr N was unable to provide the driver’s name, contact details or registration number. Mr N paid his excess and UKI arranged for his car to be repaired. Because Mr N didn’t think he was at fault for the accident, he thought it was unfair that UKI declined to refund the excess. Mr N has referred to UKI’s uninsured driver promise that says it will refund his excess if he’s hit by an uninsured driver and it’s not his fault. However, UKI said the terms of the policy required Mr N to provide the name of the driver, their contact details and the registration details. It said as Mr N hadn’t been able to provide any details of the driver or car registration, he wasn’t eligible for this promise. And confirmed it had settled the claim and wasn’t able to recover its outlay from the third party’s insurance policy. Mr N didn’t think he’d been treated fairly and referred his complaint to this Service. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said Mr N hadn’t provided everything he needed to under the terms of the uninsured drivers promise. They noted UKI had contacted the police, and up until the final response letter, it hadn’t received the police report containing the third-party name and contact details. The investigator didn’t think UKI had acted unfairly in not refunding the excess and recording the claim as ‘fault’ as it was unable to trace the third party to recover the costs of Mr N’s claim. Our investigator thought the compensation for the inconvenience caused to Mr N by the poor-quality repairs of £200 was fair. They explained they weren’t persuaded the additional repairs Mr N paid for were caused by the accident. Mr N disagreed. In response he said: • The compensation paid doesn’t address the actual financial detriment he has suffered; including additional repair costs, the excess paid and an increase in premium. • Registering the claim as ‘fault’ was not fair or reasonable. • Communications at the point of sale have not been applied in a consistent way in respect of the drivers’ uninsured promise and vandalism term. • UKI’s investigation into the third-party was incomplete. So, the case has been passed to me to make a decision.

-- 1 of 4 --

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. Mr N has raised many issues during his complaint, and I can see that UKI have sent three final response letters. It’s important to explain that I can only consider issues that have been raised with UKI and for which it’s issued a final response letter and has been bought to us in time. Our investigator explained that one of the final response letters (10 December 2024) hasn’t been bought to us in time. I will not be able to consider any concerns Mr N has, that have been addressed under that final response letter. That includes the initial repair delays, poor quality repairs and not being provided with a courtesy car or the compensation offered under that complaint. Under this complaint I have considered the matters that Mr N has raised in respect of claim being settled as a fault claim, poor quality repairs (that required the car to be taken back to the garage and main dealership) and the increase in premium at renewal. I have not considered anything that has happened after July 2025 when UKI issued its final response. I would also like to acknowledge I’ve summarised Mr N’s complaint in less detail than he’s set out. I’ve not commented on each and every point Mr N’s raised. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be the key points I need to think about. I don’t mean any discourtesy when doing this, it simply reflects the informal nature of this Service. Uninsured drivers promise and vandalism promise Mr N says that UKI have not treated him fairly in failing to honour the uninsured driver promise. I’ve first considered the policy terms and conditions, and these say: “If you claim for an accident that isn't your fault, and the driver of the vehicle that hits your car is uninsured, the No Claim Discount on this policy will not be affected and you will not need to pay an excess. What we need from you - If this happens, you'll need to give us: The registration number, make and model of the vehicle that hit you. The driver's details, if possible. The names and addresses of any independent witnesses, if available” I think the terms of the policy clearly set out what Mr N needed to provide; all of the driver’s name, contact details and their vehicle registration number, make and model to be eligible for the promise. This is standard in all similar terms across the insurance market. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable for UKI to want this information, as it needed to be able to pursue the third party directly to recover its outlay. I’m satisfied the uninsured driver promise is transparent and clearly explained in the Insurance Product Information Document (IPID) and in the policy terms and conditions with what Mr N needed to provide. I sympathise with the situation Mr N finds himself in. His car was damaged, and I appreciate he was unable to obtain the third-party’s details as they fled the scene. But ultimately, as Mr N didn’t provide the information he was required to provide, I can’t say UKI has been unfair in not refunding the excess under the terms of the uninsured driver’s promise. I’ve thought carefully about Mr N’s comments that UKI acted unfairly in applying the uninsured driver promise term in the way it has. When an insurer can’t recover its costs, it’s usual that it’s customer’s no claims discount (NCD) will be reduced. No costs are recoverable when the other party involved in the claim has no insurance. So, UKI’s

-- 2 of 4 --

uninsured driver promise offers additional protection from a NCD being reduced and the excess not having to be paid if the policy conditions are met. I have also thought carefully about Mr N’s comment in regard to the Vandalism promise, but having looked at the policy terms, it says that “Vandalism Promise doesn’t cover damage caused by another vehicle”. I’m satisfied that Mr N’s claim wouldn’t be covered under that as the damage was caused by another car. In my decision I can only consider what has happened up to the date UKI issued its final response letter, which was July 2025. If UKI is successful in identifying the third party and pursuing the recovery of its costs, this will mean Mr N’s excess payment can be refunded. But if Mr N has any concerns relating to issues after the date of UKI’s final response letter, he must make a separate complaint to the business. If he’s dissatisfied with its response, or it doesn’t respond within eight weeks, he can ask our Service to consider the matter. I appreciate Mr N has said UKI didn’t explore the police CCTV. However, at the time of the final response letter being issued UKI will still have wished to recover the repair costs it has paid. UKI has confirmed it asked for the police report but up until the final response letter, it had only received the self-report which contained the information Mr N had submitted when he first reported the incident. I’m not persuaded that UKI has acted unfairly in the actions it took in trying to identify the third party. Taking everything into consideration, I can’t say UKI has acted unfairly in not refunding the excess under the uninsured driver’s promise. Claim categorisation I understand Mr N is unhappy his claim is being deemed as ‘fault’. I should firstly explain our Service doesn’t decide who is at fault for an accident, as that is the role of the courts. Our role is to look at whether UKI has carried out a fair investigation, reviewed all of the evidence it has and come to a reasonable conclusion. I would also like to clarify the meaning of the term “fault” and “non-fault”’. Reference to a “fault claim” is often used, but the actual terminology is “no claims bonus disallowed”. It doesn’t mean the policyholder is necessarily to blame for the accident but reflects the fact where a claim has been made that the insurer hasn’t recovered its outlay. An insurer will be required to register the claim following the Claims and Underwriting Exchange (CUE) guidance. When recording the claim, the insurer can select bonus disallowed. This doesn’t mean the policyholder was to blame; it simply means that the insurer has been unable to recover all its costs in full, from another party. The alternative is a “non-fault” claim meaning “no claims bonus allowed”. This will be where an insurer has been able to recover its costs in full, from another party. I appreciate how strongly Mr N feels about this case and I also recognise the impact of this has had on him. He has lost out through no fault of his own, but contractually, Mr N is required to pay the excess as part of any claim. I think UKI has acted fairly and in line with its terms and conditions. Additional repairs Mr N has said that additional repairs have cost him approximately £1,000. UKI acknowledged in its final response letter (July 2025) there had been further issues that had arisen since Mr N received his car back. There were warning lights appearing on the dashboard. Mr N said his local garage had reset them at the beginning of May. UKI confirmed in attempt to resolve the fault its repairer replaced the battery, and because this

-- 3 of 4 --

didn’t fix the problem, it agreed that the garage and manufacturer’s dealership would investigate, at no cost to him. Following the manufacturer dealership diagnostic test, UKI agreed to cover the costs of fixing the issues with the tyre pressure monitor and the ECU, as it thought this was accident related. I understand Mr N paid for a new oxygen sensor landa probe as this was diagnosed as wear and tear. UKI acknowledged that its repairer failed to carry out an essential update on electronic control unit (ECU) which resulted in warning lights illuminating on the dashboard. It apologised and recognised that Mr N had suffered considerable inconvenience. It apologised and offered £200 in respect of these problems. I appreciate Mr N has said he doesn’t consider the level of compensation is sufficient as it doesn’t cover the excess and further losses he has suffered. And I understand why Mr N is frustrated – he had to pay an excess for something that wasn’t his fault. But unfortunately, this can happen with insurance claims. The compensation UKI offered wasn’t intended to be a refund of Mr N’s policy excess, but an acknowledgement of the inconvenience he had been caused. Having considered what happened under this part of Mr N’s complaint I’m satisfied the amount offered was adequate compensation for what happened. I have thought carefully about the additional repairs Mr N has said he paid for. The main dealership confirmed that the oxygen sensor landa probe was needed to be replaced due to wear and tear rather than caused by the accident. I think that was fair and I can see Mr N agreed to pay for that. Mr N has also provided additional invoices for further work he has needed to pay for. If Mr N thinks the accident caused the further repairs, it’s for him to show that’s more likely than not be the case. Having considered everything, I haven’t seen any further evidence from an independent engineer to confirm the damage was impact related. Premium increase I understand Mr N is unhappy that his premium increased due to the fault claim when the policy renewed. The factors an insurer considers, and what weight it places on those factors is its own commercial decision. That forms its underwriting criteria, and each insurer will have its own criteria. What I have to consider is whether the pricing of the policy Mr N received at renewal was assessed in line with those criteria, using the right information. I have asked UKI to provide me with the pricing information. I have looked carefully at this, and I’m satisfied it was assessed correctly. I can’t share that criteria, it’s commercially sensitive. Having considered the information provided, I’m satisfied Mr N’s policy was priced in line with UKI’s criteria in place at the time. I’m therefore satisfied he’s been treated the same as anyone else in his situation would have been and that he’s not been treated unfairly. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Lorraine Ball Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --