AWP P&C S.A. · DRN-6259127

The complaint Miss C complains that AWP P&C S.A.(“AWP”) is responsible for mishandling her claim on a roadside assistance policy. What happened The subject matter of the insurance and the claim is a small car with a petrol engine and automatic transmission, that had first been registered in 2015. Miss C acquired the car no later than December 2020, the date of its most recent V5 registration document. In March 2025, Miss C had roadside assistance cover branded with the name of the car- maker. AWP was the insurance company that was responsible for dealing with any claim. Unfortunately, in late March 2025, the car displayed warnings that the battery wasn’t being charged and the engine was too hot. Miss C drove the car home and called for help under the policy. Much of the complaint is about acts, omissions and communications of claims-handlers and a technician on behalf of AWP. Insofar as I hold it responsible for them, I may refer to them as acts, omissions and communications of AWP. By an email dated early June 2025, Miss C complained to AWP about the response she’d received. By a final response dated 4 July 2025, AWP apologised and offered to send Miss C (if she shared bank details) compensation totalling £200.00. In mid-July 2025, Miss C replied, rejecting the offer. Miss C brought her complaint to us in mid-August 2025. Our investigator didn’t recommend that the complaint should be upheld. She thought that AWP acted reasonably within the terms of the policy and the resolution offered was fair and proportionate to what happened. Miss C disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. She asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. She says, in summary, that: • It was the day before a religious holiday and shortly before her birthday. • She saw on their tracker that the technician had registered as being outside her property an hour before he arrived. • The car was overheating so the technician should’ve towed the car. • Driving with an overheated engine can damage the vehicle.

-- 1 of 3 --

• The technician shouldn’t have asked her to drive the car with overheating and battery faults. • She drove the vehicle 8.5 miles on a Saturday afternoon in traffic. It took 45 minutes. 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. The warning that the engine was too hot didn’t advise the driver not to drive any further. Rather it advised to drive moderately to let the engine cool. The warning that the battery wasn't being charged advised that the battery should be checked. Miss C had driven the car the short distance home. I’ve seen that Miss C was kept hanging on the phone on 29 March 2025, a Saturday. Also, AWP used an incorrect contact number for Miss C. So a technician didn’t assist until the afternoon. The technician assessed that the car was safe for Miss C to drive to the nearest service centre franchised by the car-maker. I consider that Miss C has fallen short of showing that the technician’s assessment was careless or that he should’ve diagnosed the underlying fault or towed the car. I don’t under-estimate Miss C’s upset, especially when it turned out that the car broke down, twice. I accept that Miss C was troubled by the thought of what might’ve happened if the car had broken down on a roundabout. However, the technician was following and looking out for her. Like many roadside assistance policies, AWP’s didn’t cover garage costs such as the service centre’s diagnostic fee. I don’t consider that AWP treated Miss C unfairly by failing to warn her that she would have to pay the service centre. The service centre diagnosed the underlying fault. As repairs couldn’t be completed within four hours, the policy provided for a replacement vehicle. However the replacement vehicle didn’t have to match Miss C’s car. So, whilst I accept that AWP incorrectly told the hire car company that Miss C’s car was manual, I can’t say that AWP failed to comply with the policy by failing to ask for an automatic. When Miss C asked, no automatic was available. Putting things right The final response offer was broken down as follows: distress due to incorrect Hire Car booking and experience overall £125.00 delay in technician attendance £ 50.00 long hold time and communication issues £ 25.00 total £200.00

-- 2 of 3 --

I’ve weighed up the shortcomings I’ve identified in AWP’s service. Moreover, I’ve thought about the nature and duration of their impact on Miss C at an already busy time and in an already difficult situation. Overall, I’m satisfied that £200.00 is fair and reasonable and in line with our published guidelines for compensation for distress and inconvenience. So I don’t find it fair and reasonable to direct AWP to pay Miss C any more compensation than that. As Miss C rejected the offer and I don’t think AWP paid her, I find it fair and reasonable to uphold this complaint and to direct AWP to pay Miss C, insofar as it hasn’t already paid her, £200.00 for distress and inconvenience. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. I direct AWP P&C S.A. to pay Miss C, insofar as it hasn’t already paid her, £200.00 for distress and inconvenience. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss C to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --