DRN-6148934

The complaint Mr C complains that Inter Partner Assistance SA (IPA) declined his claim made on his breakdown assistance motor insurance policy. He wants it to reimburse his costs and compensate him for his trouble. What happened Mr C misfuelled his motorhome whilst abroad. He contacted IPA for assistance, but it said this wasn’t covered by his breakdown assistance policy. So Mr C had to organise his own recovery, repairs and repatriation. This cost over £2,000. Mr C thought IPA had acted unfairly as he thought misfuelling wasn’t excluded from cover in the policy’s European breakdown assistance endorsement that he was claiming under. Our Investigator recommended that the complaint should be upheld in part. He thought IPA had reasonably declined the claim as misfuelling wasn’t stated as covered in the European breakdown assistance endorsement whilst it was covered (with limitations) in the UK breakdown assistance endorsement. He thought that as the cause of the breakdown was misfuelling, then the claim wouldn’t be covered as mechanical breakdown or immobilisation. And he also thought the policy didn’t cover events where foreign substances were added to the fuel. But he thought IPA should have been more helpful when it declined Mr C’s claim. And he thought it should pay Mr C £100 compensation for the trouble and upset this had caused. IPA replied that it agreed to do this. But Mr C replied asking for an Ombudsman’s review, so his complaint has come to me for a final decision. He said that misfuelling whilst abroad was excluded from cover in the UK breakdown assistance endorsement, but not the European. He thought he shouldn’t suffer detriment because of ambiguous policy terms. 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 C has provided details of his motorhome’s breakdown and the trouble this caused for him and his family. I was sorry to hear this and I can see that this led to significant financial costs. I can understand that he would want his claim to be covered by IPA. Our approach in cases like this is to consider whether the insurer’s acted in line with the terms and conditions of the policy and fairly and reasonably. Mr C made a claim on the European breakdown assistance endorsement of his policy. I can see that this, unlike the UK endorsement, doesn’t have any exclusions for misfuelling. But I wouldn’t expect a policy to list every possible eventuality. And I think it’s significant that the European endorsement doesn’t state that misfuelling is covered whilst the UK endorsement does provide a page stating the cover for this subject to limitations. Looking at the policy schedule provided to Mr C when he took out the policy, I can see that it includes “Endorsements Applying and your Optional Covers”. This specifically lists misfuelling as being covered as part of the “UK Roadside Breakdown Assistance”

-- 1 of 2 --

endorsement. But there is no mention of misfuelling being covered as part of the “European Breakdown Assistance” endorsement. So I’m satisfied that the policy’s terms and conditions didn’t provide Mr C with cover for misfuelling whilst abroad. And I’m satisfied that this was sufficiently brought to his attention when he took out the policy so that he could make an informed choice about whether this met his needs. Mr C thought the policy should cover him as it covers mechanical breakdown and also immobilisation. But I disagree. This is because the cause of Mr C’s motorhome breaking down was misfuelling. And, as I’ve said above, this isn’t covered whilst in Europe. Mr C claimed under the European breakdown assistance endorsement of his policy for something which isn’t listed as being covered under this endorsement. So I’m satisfied it was in keeping with the policy’s terms and conditions and fair and reasonable for IPA to refuse to provide cover for his claim and to decline to reimburse his costs. Our Investigator thought IPA should have done more when Mr C called it after the breakdown. Mr C was already in a distressing circumstance and was facing considerable trouble to resolve his situation. And I think IPA’s blank refusal of assistance, such as advising of the location of repairers, added to his distress. IPA agreed to pay Mr C £100 compensation for the avoidable impact of its blank refusal of his claim. And I think that’s fair and reasonable as it’s in keeping with our published guidance. Putting things right I require Inter Partner Assistance SA to pay Mr C £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his claim. My final decision For the reasons given above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. I require Inter Partner Assistance SA to carry out the redress set out above, as it’s agreed to do. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Phillip Berechree Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --