Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6196054

The complaint Miss G has complained about how Aviva Insurance Limited dealt with her claim and the claim of the other driver under her motor policy, following an accident. Miss G is represented by her partner – however for ease of reference I shall just refer to Miss G throughout. What happened Miss G was involved in an accident with this other driver on 20 June 2025. So she made a claim to Aviva that day to notify it of the accident and to repair her car. Aviva recovered her car that day and provided a courtesy car the next day. On 4 July 2025, Aviva told Miss G that the other driver had made a claim on Miss G’s policy for damage to her car and for personal injury. Aviva also explained it was intending to accept liability for the other driver’s car damage and personal injury given the circumstances of how the accident occurred. Miss G objected to this and wanted Aviva to review its position on liability. Aviva then instructed its solicitors. On 17 July 2025 Aviva then told Miss G it would be accepting liability for the other driver’s car damage and personal injury. Miss G complained about this and also about the fact that there was considerable confusion over getting her the courtesy car too. Aviva agreed it could have been clearer about the courtesy car and paid Miss G £50 compensation. However it didn’t think it had done anything wrong with accepting liability for the purposes of the other driver’s claim. Dissatisfied Miss G brought her complaint to us. The investigator was of the view that Aviva’s decision on liability was not unreasonable and he thought Aviva had done enough as regards the confusion over the courtesy car. So he didn’t think Aviva needed to do anything more. Miss G disagreed so her complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. Having done so, I’m not upholding this complaint. I do understand and appreciate that Miss G will be very disappointed, so I’ll now explain why. In assessing complaints of this nature, my role is to assess what if anything Aviva has done wrong as regards the terms and conditions of its policy. So it’s useful to look at what the policy and Miss G’s cover actually says.

-- 1 of 5 --

In the schedule, it’s clear that Miss G didn’t pay any extra premium for a guaranteed hire car and that instead she opted for a courtesy car from the approved repairer for the duration of the repairs. In the policy it says the following: ‘If you have had an accident or your car has been damaged by fire, theft, or vandalism: We’ll arrange: • for you and your passengers to be taken home or to your destination (in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man). * • for your car to be recovered to one of our approved repairers. • to repair your car or pay for it to be repaired and deliver it back to your home. • The repair is covered by our Repair guarantee. * … Courtesy car - standard cover A courtesy car is provided subject to availability to reduce your inconvenience and where possible ensure you remain mobile. It is not intended to be an exact replacement for your car. All courtesy cars have comprehensive cover under your policy for the period the courtesy car is provided. • A courtesy car will only be provided when your claim has been accepted and your car is repairable, and is being repaired by our approved repairer network. • A courtesy car is typically a small three door hatchback car with four seats. • If your car is immobile or unroadworthy we aim to provide a courtesy car within one working day (however if an incident occurs during a weekend or on a bank/public holiday, it may not be possible to provide a courtesy car until the following normal working day). … Exclusions to Section 1 What we won’t pay for: • Loss of use, wear and tear, loss or damage which happens gradually, loss of value following repair, [my emphasis] depreciation, failure of electronics, mechanical breakdown or breakage, or tyre damage caused by braking, punctures, cuts or bursts. … General conditions These conditions apply to all covers in this booklet. … Our rights If we want to, we can take over and conduct in the name of the person claiming under the policy the defence or settlement of any claim or take proceedings for our own benefit to recover any payment we have made under this policy. We shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or the settlement of any claim.

-- 2 of 5 --

The person who is seeking payment under this policy shall give us all the relevant information, documents and assistance we require to enable any claims to be validated for us to achieve a settlement or pursue a recovery.’ Courtesy car issues It’s perfectly understandable that after an accident, everyone’s anxiety is raised as it is a very upsetting event causing everyone involved a degree of shock too. I can see that Aviva did recover the car within an hour of Miss G reporting the accident and that it provided the courtesy car a day later. So both of these issues were completed within the policy specifications of how they should be completed. I do understand there was some confusion over the authority for the courtesy car and some of that information was contradictory. However given the policy terms Miss G was always entitled to a courtesy car when available. And she received this. I’m not sure why she thought she might be charged for it as it was part of the cover the policy provided. Generally depending on the approved repairer used, the approved repairer provides the courtesy car. Here it was provided by a nationwide car hire firm. But I can find no evidence Miss G was told she might be liable for its cost. The contract for the hire car was between Aviva and the car hire company too, so there was no need for Miss G to have any other paperwork since she was not the paying party on the contract with the hire car company. Aviva paid Miss G £50 compensation for the initial confusion over the car which I consider is reasonable and in line with our approach to compensation for such matters. However it has to be noted that Miss G was provided with the courtesy car within one working day as the policy provided, so beyond that I don’t consider Aviva did anything wrong here, so there is nothing further Aviva needs to do now. Aviva’s liability decision The policy permits Aviva full discretion in coming to its decision on who it thinks is most likely to blame for causing the accident. This is standard across the motor insurance industry so I don’t find it unusual or significant. Motor insurers like Aviva here, deal with liability cases daily and at court so they have considerable experience about what cases they can be successful at prosecuting or defending. Therefore there is nothing wrong with this policy term and more importantly Aviva don’t have to obtain Miss G’s consent to any decision on liability either as it remains its own decision to make. Effectively by agreeing to buy the policy Miss G has also agreed to the policy terms and conditions. Our remit therefore is to consider whether Aviva came to its decision reasonably as we are not a court and we can’t decide who might be liable for causing any accident. Miss G was emerging out of a minor road to a more major road to turn right. The Highway Code decrees that anyone on the more major road has priority over anyone in the more minor road. So it was for Miss G to ensure both ways on the more major road were clear of traffic before she proceeded to turn right. Unfortunately as Miss G was executing her right hand turn, the accident happened with the other driver who was coming from the right on the more major road. That in itself reveals the possibility that both carriageways were not clear before Miss G started to make her turn. The legal evidence obtained by Aviva says the following: ‘She sets off at 0.03 secs and slows down a bit but then sets off again at 0.08 secs into the path of the third party. I cannot understand how she failed to see the third

-- 3 of 5 --

party and suspect she was concentrating on looking to her left because she sets off again once the vehicle approaching from her left has gone past. The footage shows there is nothing following the third party and she should have just let him pass… She was emerging from the minor road onto the major road and should have given way.’ Given Miss G’s position and the manoeuvre she was about to do, the law is clear that the onus was on her to ensure both lanes of traffic were clear before she turned right on to a more major road. So in the first instance I don’t find Aviva’s decision on liability to be questionable. The fact Aviva then had its solicitors to view the evidence and for them to come back with this analysis simply serves to show Aviva’s analysis of the law in view of what happened is shown to be correct. Therefore I don’t consider that Aviva came to its decision on liability unreasonably or failed to take into account any pertinent evidence. It’s clear from the dash cam evidence analysed that Miss G didn’t look right again after the car coming from the left had passed by. As Aviva has the sole discretion to make the decision over liability, that also means it has discretion over what evidence it wants to consider. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the accident, then there was little else that needed to be considered. So I don’t consider Aviva needed to investigate anything else or was necessarily unreasonable in not considering anything else. Because of that Aviva are under a duty to register this as a fault claim and for Miss G’s No Claims Bonus to be affected. That also means she must pay her excess to have her car repaired and that Aviva can’t obtain a refund of that excess from the other driver’s insurers either. Excesses are always payable if the policyholder makes a claim and are only refundable by another party’s insurers if that other party was liable in causing the accident which isn’t the case here, bearing in mind how the accident occurred. Other issues Miss G raised • The other driver’s insurers It doesn’t really matter who insured the other driver or whether it was Aviva or another insurer. All motor insurers often encounter the situation where both parties to the accident may be insured by them and there are systems and rules which they must abide by in how they deal with this. I’ve seen no evidence bearing in mind the circumstances of the accident that Aviva didn’t abide by these rules in its consideration of the matter. • The issues of Miss G receiving a summary resolution communication instead of a final response letter. As the investigator noted both of these gave Miss G referral rights to this service so I don’t consider there is any issue to address here. • Loss of value of the car This is excluded from cover by Aviva’s policy as I detailed above. There is no duty of Aviva to deal with this at all. This is common in all motor policies too. Damage to cars from accidents can of course devalue a car, but it’s an issue which most policies simply don’t cover. • Loss of a salary increase and/or impact on Miss G’s employment I’ve seen no evidence concerning this at all. So without that I can’t comment on it. I will say however that it would be really difficult to separate out the stress induced by simply being involved in an accident (which of course has nothing to do with Aviva at all) and which can be considerable, from the alleged stress of dealing with Aviva and

-- 4 of 5 --

distinguishing which caused these alleged issues. Furthermore in assessing complaints about insurers, we are not set up to determine whether their negligence caused any personal injury as that is better suited to a court of law. The law concerning the tort of negligence is substantially different from considering whether Aviva adhered to its policy terms and the regulations under which it operates reasonably. • Avvia’s internal claims handling and other internal practices Under the regulations of the Financial Conduct Authority, each insurer is fully entitled to decide its own internal procedures to ensure it operates within those regulations. I have no remit or authority to interfere with that under the rules by which this service operates. For the avoidance of doubt leaving aside the confusion caused over the courtesy car, I’ve seen no other evidence that Aviva mishandled anything else. The circumstances of how the accident occurred gave rise to its liability decision and I consider that is reasonable bearing in mind how the accident occurred and the analysis of the dash cam evidence available. • Miss G’s vulnerability given neurodiversity I’ve also seen no evidence that Aviva disregarded Miss G’s issues here, save that it caused confusion over the courtesy car which it accepted and for which it has provided adequate compensation. I can fully appreciate that Miss G is very upset and distressed at being involved in an accident and being found liable to have caused it. I think anyone would feel the same too. But I haven’t found any evidence that Aviva did anything which showed it ignored Miss G’s neurodiversity, however. Conclusion Whilst I appreciate Miss G will remain disappointed, I don’t consider Aviva has done anything wrong in its handling of her claim and the claim by the other driver against Miss G’s policy. Other than causing confusion over the courtesy car for which it has apologised and paid adequate and reasonable compensation for. Beyond that I don’t consider Aviva has done anything wrong. My final decision So, for these reasons it’s my final decision that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss G to accept or reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Rona Doyle Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --