Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6264399

The complaint Mr M complains about Aviva Insurance Limited’s service in connection with a claim he made on his motor insurance policy. In particular he said it didn't communicate well, delayed progress and unfairly said it would charge him his policy excesses. What happened Mr M was in queuing traffic on the motorway when he was hit from behind by another car. He has dashcam footage of the incident. That shows the crash started several cars back, with those at the back being pushed into the cars in front, ending with Mr M’s car. He notified Aviva of the claim on 12 September 2025, a Friday, and later that day submitted other information including his dashcam footage. Mr M contacted Aviva again the following Monday, 15 September 2025. He was unhappy that it hadn't yet uploaded the dashcam footage to its system and that it would charge him his policy excess together with an additional excess for using his preferred repairer. He also had issues with the provision of a hire car. He complained. Aviva responded to the complaint on 23 September 2025. It acknowledged that not uploading the dashcam footage promptly would have added to Mr M’s frustration. But it otherwise didn't believe it had done anything wrong. It said it would waive his excess if he used one of its approved repairers. Mr M brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. One of our Investigators looked into it. He didn’t think Aviva had dealt with Mr M fairly, so he said it should pay Mr M £250 compensation. Aviva didn't agree so the matter was passed to me to determine. Provisional decision On 18 March 2026 I issued a provisional decision. For ease of reference I've reproduced the relevant extracts below. I said: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Since Aviva issued its complaint response on 23 September 2025 Mr M has raised other concerns about its service. And Aviva has since issued a further complaint response. However, in this decision I will only be dealing with Mr M’s complaint points up to Aviva’s final response letter of 23 September 2025. Any points of complaint that arose after the date would be the subject of another complaint. I understand that there was initially some confusion as to which organisation was taking responsibility for Mr M’s claim. That's because as part of the extended warranty for his car, the manufacturer offers an accident management service, which I'll refer to as V. And, initially at least, Mr M wanted V to progress the claim. I’ll briefly explain that accident management companies are not insurers. They are entirely separate services. So Aviva would have no responsibility for the service V provided here. Accident management companies will often arrange like-for-like hire cars and repairs without charging an excess. They then recover their outlay from the third party, who was responsible for causing the accident, or their insurer. In contrast insurers will often only provide small

-- 1 of 4 --

courtesy cars while repairs are ongoing. They will also usually insist that their policyholders pay their excesses. So there can be advantages to consumers in using an accident management company. However, as I've already said Aviva would not be responsible for the actions of V or any delays or confusion its involvement caused. Policy excesses Mr M initially told Aviva that V would progress the claim for him. But he later said that as the incident involved multiple cars, it wasn’t happy to do so. So Mr M returned to Aviva. He said he still wanted the manufacturer’s repairer, rather than Aviva’s approved repairer, to fix his car as he was concerned that having another repairer involved would affect the car’s warranty. Aviva told Mr M, at an early stage, that if he wanted to use the manufacturer’s repairer then, as well as his policy excess of £500 he would have to pay an additional excess of £250 to use a non-approved repairer. Given that the accident wasn’t his fault Mr M didn't think it was fair for Aviva to charge him an excess. However, I don't think Aviva did anything wrong here. Mr M’s policy is clear that his excess is always payable when a claim is made irrespective of who is at fault. It’s a cost he agreed to pay when he bought his policy with Aviva in the event of a claim. So I don't think it was unfair for Aviva to tell Mr M he would need to pay this. I’ll explain that where liability isn't disputed and there’s no question about whether the third party is covered, some insurers won't charge an excess at all. But it’s technically not covered by the policy so is an uninsured loss. However, generally, where the third party is found to be at fault, most insurers will ask the third party insurer for the excess as part of its settlement and, where liability isn’t disputed, it’s usually paid without quibble. So as an excess is generally payable I don't think Aviva did anything wrong in telling Mr M he would have to pay this. As I've already said, it was something he agreed to do when he took out the policy. Further, his policy and its schedule are clear that if he chose to have his car repaired by a non-approved repairer then an additional excess of £250 would apply. Aviva explained to Mr M that it has little control over the actions of non-approved repairers which may increase the costs it incurs. So it charges an additional excess. I think that's reasonable in the circumstances. And as I've said I can see that Aviva made Mr M aware of his excesses when he spoke with it on 15 September 2025. It follows that I don't think Aviva did anything wrong when it told him that it would charge the two excesses totalling £750. I’ll add that while insurers may choose to waive an excess where the claim is non-fault, they are under no obligation to do so. So the fact insurers can and do waive excesses doesn't mean that they’ve acted unfairly or unreasonably if they don't do that. However, in this case I can see that Mr M did eventually decide to have Aviva’s approved repairer fix his car. And Aviva agreed to waive the relevant excess at that point. But that wasn’t something it had to do, and in those circumstances I don't think Aviva did anything wrong by initially saying it was payable. For completeness I’ll comment that Aviva explained to Mr M that legislation prevents the manufacturer from invalidating his car’s warranty by having repairs completed by a non-manufacturer approved garage. So it isn’t the case, as Mr M thought, that Aviva was putting his car at further risk by charging an additional excess to use a non-approved repairer. Claim handling I can see that Aviva didn't progress everything as smoothly as it could have. After Mr M reported the claim to it on 12 September 2025 – a Friday – later that evening he submitted further accident details to Aviva. That information included his dashcam footage which shows he wasn’t at fault for the accident. Mr M submitted that evidence at around 8.10pm, which is outside of Aviva’s standard working hours. Aviva sent Mr M two automated text messages, one each on 12 & 13 September 2025, to acknowledge receipt of his claim.

-- 2 of 4 --

Mr M rang Aviva on the following Monday morning, 15 September 2025. At that point Aviva still hadn’t uploaded his dashcam footage. So it asked him to send this again to a different email address. My understanding is that Aviva did that as video footage can take some time to be uploaded to its system and by asking Mr M to send it again it was ensuring it could take any required action sooner. However, I note Aviva acknowledged in its response to Mr M’s complaint that this would have added to his frustration. While I recognise that, I wouldn’t think this short delay in uploading a video, which was submitted outside of standard working hours, and the requirement to send it a second time was on its own worthy of compensation. Claim progress and provision of a hire car Mr M told Aviva on 15 September 2025 that he had instructed V. As such I wouldn’t have expected Aviva to try and progress matters at that point. As I've already said, V is an entirely separate company from Aviva and Aviva does not give V instructions, only Mr M could do that. That said I believe V initially sent a request to a hire car company, which I’ll call firm E. I understand that instruction was, most likely, to provide a car for Mr M on what’s known as a credit hire basis. That is where the hire car company doesn't charge the consumer a fee directly but would look to recover its costs from the at fault driver or their insurer. But firm E was reluctant to rent Mr M a car on that basis. At that point firm E was taking instructions from V and not Aviva. So any delays or frustration this caused to Mr M were not Aviva’s fault. However, firm E told Mr M that it would lend him a car if Aviva authorised this. At that point Aviva told firm E that, as it was satisfied Mr M wasn’t at fault for the accident, it was happy to authorise the hire car. So, at that point, Aviva became responsible for the hire car element of the claim and I understand it intervened that day and asked firm E to provide a hire car. I think that was a reasonable step to take. Although I understand that Mr M was unhappy with the size of the car and Aviva again intervened and firm E provided a larger car as a result. Again I think that was a reasonable response. After V told Mr M that it wouldn’t arrange repairs, Aviva said it would do so. However, Mr M didn't want matters progressing until Aviva had responded to his complaint about paying an excess and the other issues. This caused a further delay. But this was Mr M’s choice to delay matters while Aviva considered his concerns. And as I've said above, I think it was reasonable for Aviva, initially at least, to insist that Mr M pay the excesses he had agreed to when he took out the policy. So I don't find Aviva responsible for the delays here. Summary While not everything went smoothly for Mr M, up to 23 September 2025, I’m not persuaded that much of the frustration he experienced was because of anything Aviva got wrong. In those circumstances I don't think it would be fair and reasonable to instruct Aviva to pay compensation. Further, as I've already said, within this provisional decision I am not considering the impact of anything that happened after 23 September 2025.” Developments Mr M initially commented that my provisional decision had failed to address his complaint points arising after 23 September 2025. Our Investigator confirmed that he was in the process of setting up a new complaint under a separate reference number to look into those issues. Mr M said he wanted to ensure that the complaint wasn’t “artificially split” where there was continuity in his complaints about Aviva's handling. He specifically referred to the condition of his car when returned to him, the handling of the courtesy car and overall service failures.

-- 3 of 4 --

He was concerned that splitting the complaint would dilute the impact of his claims experience. 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 M’s comments on my provisional decision focus on his overall experience. However, as I said in that decision, in line with our rules, I am limited to considering the events that happened up to Aviva’s complaints response of September 2025. So for the avoidance of doubt I will not be considering any of Mr M’s concerns about later issues here. And having considered the matters I am looking into, for the reasons I gave previously, generally, I think Aviva handled things fairly and reasonably. That is, I didn't find that Aviva did anything wrong concerning the courtesy car or its overall service up to that point. Further, for the period I am considering, repairs had not been completed on Mr M’s car. So any complaints he has about those will fall outside the scope of this decision. Neither Aviva nor Mr M have specifically disputed my provisional findings. So I don't intend to revisit those here. My final decision For the reasons set out above I do not require Aviva to take any further action concerning Mr M’s complaint points which it replied to on 23 September 2025. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Joe Scott Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --