Advantage Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6210972

The complaint Mr U has complained about the way Advantage Insurance Company Limited handled a claim he made on his motor insurance policy. What happened In April 2025, a third-party hit the bumper of Mr U’s unattended vehicle. When he got into his car, he found his gears weren’t working properly, so claimed on his motor insurance policy underwritten by Advantage. At first, Advantage accepted the claim and said they would write off Mr U’s vehicle. But an engineer who inspected it said damage to the gearbox was likely unrelated to the accident, so Advantage declined to cover it. Mr U made various complaints to Advantage about the handling of his claim. These included about how Advantage declined part of the claim; the amount they valued his car for; the conduct of their engineer; additional damage to his vehicle; and their general handling of the claim. Mr U ultimately referred his complaints to this Service. An Investigator looked into what happened and partially upheld the complaint. He didn’t think it was unreasonable for Advantage to decline to cover damage to the gearbox, but felt they handled the claim poorly before doing so. He recommended Advantage invite Mr U to claim for the damage to his bumper and pay £500 compensation for poor claim handling. Advantage agreed to pay compensation but thought £250 would be a more appropriate amount. Mr U disagreed with the Investigator’s findings. The complaint couldn’t be resolved, so it came to me to decide. My provisional decision I issued a provisional decision partially upholding the complaint. Its findings form part of this final decision, so I’ve copied them in below. I also invited any further comments or evidence before I issued a final decision. I said the following: As ours is an informal service, I’m not going to comment on every point or piece of evidence Mr U and Advantage 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 U’s policy covers him for damage to his vehicle because of an accident. So, Advantage should indemnify Mr U for any damage directly related to the accident with the third-party – unless any exclusions apply. Advantage said the damage to Mr U’s gearbox wasn’t caused by the accident. And felt an exclusion did apply – the policy says Mr U isn’t covered for mechanical failures, and Advantage said the damage to the gearbox was likely due to a mechanical failure. The engineer conducted a visual inspection of Mr U’s vehicle, took photographs of the damage and wrote a report. I appreciate Mr U feels they should have conducted a more thorough investigation, but both engineers have found this wasn’t needed in the circumstances and it’s not unusual for insurers to have engineers inspect damage from a minor accident in this way. I don’t find it unreasonable for them to have done so here.

-- 1 of 4 --

The engineer’s report said: • The vehicle sustained a very light impact while parked resulting in a minor mark to the top edge of the front bumper. • The vehicle doesn’t engage in reverse gear, though it appears to move forward in all other gears. • Given the extremely light nature of the impact, it’s unlikely this event directly caused the issue with the transmission. • Instead, the gear engagement problem is more likely attributable to a pre-existing issue rather than a direct result of the incident. Mr U complained about this first engineer and Advantage had a second engineer carry out a desktop inspection. He thought the first engineer’s recommendations about the gear selection issue were correct. He said it’s unlikely the impact sustained would have caused the issue, but if Mr U is still concerned, he would need to take the vehicle to a suitably equipped main dealer service department for further investigation and to carry out a diagnostics check to confirm the cause of the fault. Taking into account both engineers’ opinions, and having not seen an expert report showing otherwise, I’m not persuaded the accident caused the issues Mr U wants to claim for. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Advantage to accept the engineer’s explanation and decline to undertake repairs or write off the vehicle. I can understand why Mr U thinks the accident contributed to the gearbox failing. And it is possible the accident has highlighted a pre- existing issue. But that doesn’t mean it was the main cause of the damage. Nor have Advantage’s engineers’ reports shown it to be as such. If Mr U chooses to take his vehicle to a dealership for further inspection, and they find the fault is related to the accident, I would expect Advantage to reconsider their position. Advantage’s engineer said the cost to repair the bumper would be around £287, which is £42 more than his excess. From the notes I’ve seen, Mr U didn’t want to claim only for the cosmetic damage to his bumper and wanted the issue with the gearbox dealt with. Mr U’s claim for his bumper hasn’t been declined and, from what I’ve seen, Advantage would still cover this damage if Mr U wanted to claim for it. He can still make this part of the claim if he wishes. Advantage’s engineer carried out a visual inspection of Mr U’s vehicle. During this, Mr U alleged the engineer acted unprofessionally, had a bad attitude, and was asking personal questions. I can see Advantage took Mr U’s allegations seriously and the repairer carried out an investigation into what happened. They spoke to the engineer and said he wouldn’t generally expect him to have acted in the manner which Mr U described. But did accept there may have been other outside influences on the day he attended which may have affected his demeanour – and sincerely apologised. He said he’ll be arranging to have a formal general performance review with the engineer which would allow him to establish whether any further training or action is required to ensure a professional and courteous approach to his work. Considering the engineer carrying out the second inspection confirmed the points Mr U brought up about the first engineer’s personal life, it’s likely they did act unprofessionally and made Mr U feel uncomfortable. I’m happy to see the repairer is taking this seriously. And the compensation I’m awarding below takes the engineer’s actions into account. I’m not going to comment on the valuation of Mr U’s vehicle or whether it would have been fair of Advantage to write off the vehicle as the claim and complaint have moved on. But I do

-- 2 of 4 --

think it was premature for Advantage to tell Mr U they were writing off and collecting his vehicle in the way they did. I think it would have been clearer for Advantage to determine whether the gearbox damage was covered before letting Mr U know what next steps they were going to take. I see there were several conversations with Mr U about the valuation and collection of Mr U’s vehicle and ultimately these were unnecessary – as was the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr U by the dispute over them. So, I think compensation is warranted for this – as well as for distress caused by the engineer’s actions. Advantage have suggested £250 compensation to put things right, and I’m satisfied this is in line with what I would have awarded, so I’m intending to direct them to pay this. I see Mr U has complained about the price of his policy and about Advantage not responding to the third-party insurer in January 2026. But I haven’t seen Advantage had a chance to respond to these complaint points at the time Mr U came to this Service, so I’m not commenting on them in this decision. Mr U also complained about his legal cover, but he would need to direct this to his legal expenses insurance insurer. Advantage didn’t respond to the provisional decision. Mr U disagreed and spoke to our Investigator about why. 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 U spoke to our Investigator at length about my provisional decision. His points included: • The person who checked his vehicle wasn’t an engineer, he was simply an assessor. • The assessor didn’t check the engine or use any equipment to check the vehicle. • The accident did affect the gearbox and he knew because of the way his car moved when the vehicles separated. • Advantage kept changing their position throughout the claim including about liability, whether the vehicle was being written off and scrapped, and whether the vehicle could be repaired. I appreciate the call covered other issues including what happened with the third-party driver, the police, and the third-party insurer. But these aren’t relevant to the complaint about Advantage. Mr U said he’s currently in negotiations with Advantage. I don’t know what these negotiations are about, but, as I’ve mentioned, I can only comment on points Advantage have already had a chance to consider. Mr U may think his vehicle wasn’t assessed by an engineer, but I’m satisfied the report was written by one with the relevant expert experience. And when Mr U was concerned, Advantage had a second engineer carry out a desktop inspection. I set out in my provisional decision that without contrary evidence showing the damage to the gearbox was directly caused by the accident, I think it was reasonable for Advantage to accept the engineers’ findings and decline to cover that part of the claim. I haven’t been provided with any persuasive evidence that shows otherwise, so I haven’t changed my opinion. Mr U spoke at length to our Investigator about the conflicting way Advantage handled his claim before ultimately declining it. I explained in my provisional decision that I don’t think Advantage handled the claim as they should have, and I thought carefully about the distress and inconvenience this caused – alongside the behaviour of the person who checked Mr U’s vehicle and how this affected Mr U. After considering what Mr U told the Investigator, I still think £250 is an appropriate amount of compensation for what happened – so I’m directing Advantage to pay this to Mr U.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision For the reasons above, I uphold this complaint and direct Advantage Insurance Company Limited to pay Mr U £250. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr U to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Andrew Wakatsuki-Robinson Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --