DRN-6290943

The complaint Mr H complained about how UK Insurance Limited (UKI) trading as Direct Line dealt with his repair claim under his motor insurance policy. What happened Mr H said that UKI didn’t provide him with a courtesy or hire car suitable for his mobility needs while his car was being repaired after an accident. The repairing garage at first offered him a small hatchback as a courtesy car. Mr H said it was unsuitable and so UKI asked a hire car supplier to try to provide a suitable alternative, but they couldn’t do so. Mr H said this meant that for about nine days he had to use taxis and that because he suffered from social anxiety this caused him significant distress. UKI reimbursed his taxi fares of £180, and Mr H was satisfied with that. But they offered him £100 as a goodwill payment for his inconvenience. He felt that wasn’t proportionate to the emotional impact on his mental health. The investigator didn’t recommend that the complaint should be upheld. He thought that UKI had acted fairly and reasonably. Mr H didn’t agree and so I’ve been asked 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. My role here is to decide whether UKI have acted fairly towards Mr H. I’m not considering here the role of the operator of the scheme, Motability( “M”), under which Mr H leased his car. The terms under which the car is provided by M are subject to the scheme terms and conditions and the agreement between them and Mr H. UKI is the insurer of the vehicle provided to Mr H by M under their lease scheme. UKI insure the leased vehicles under a master policy. Mr H explained that he was a single parent and that he experiences social anxiety. He struggled being without a car, and it affected his daily functioning and disrupted his parental responsibilities. He had to use taxis for the school run, and essential tasks such as shopping. But he found taxis unpredictable, and he felt uncomfortable and unsafe waiting in public places for them. This caused him anxiety and panic attacks. I do see that not having car did have a significant effect on Mr H over that period. I’ve listened to the calls Mr H had with UKI about the situation. Mr H’s own car was a sport utility vehicle(SUV). UKI explained to Mr H from the start that he wouldn’t be entitled to a like for like car during the repairs, and that the repairing garage would offer a small five door hatchback. UKI checked that he would prefer an automatic. So I think UKI did fairly set Mr H’s expectations from the start. But when the garage offered Mr H that type of small car , Mr H found that it wasn’t suitable for his needs as it was too low. It’s clear that UKI listened to him and were sympathetic to his

-- 1 of 3 --

situation. They did discuss with him what other size of car might suit him. They also explained other options such as a taxi account or loss of use payments, which M might provide. And though they advised him that the hire company had been experiencing availability delays of up to five days, when Mr H was clear that he wanted an automatic SUV, they acted on his wishes and booked it promptly. Unfortunately, due to lack of availability, the hire car company couldn’t provide that. UKI apologised and explained to Mr H that was because larger cars such as SUVs were in lower supply and higher demand. But UKI said that it wasn’t their responsibility because the hire car supplier was acting for M, and so any complaints regarding the hire car supplier would first need to be raised directly with M. Mr H thought it should be UKI’s responsibility because his contract was with UKI, not with M and not the hire car supplier. But as I said above, M provide the car to Mr H under their lease scheme and UKI is the insurer of cars under that scheme, but under a master policy. I’ve looked at Mr H’s policy and it is clear from the general conditions on page 26 that UKI “won’t cover any indirect losses suffered because of an incident unless stated otherwise elsewhere in this cover booklet. It gave as examples of such indirect losses “ losing the use of the vehicle” and “travel costs”. Mr H’s policy also says that the responsibility for providing any replacement travel during car repair is not theirs but is M’s, under their agreement with M about the lease scheme. As I’ve said, I’m not looking here at M’s role, as Mr H’s complaint is against UKI. However I note that M’s booklet about the lease scheme indicates that M have the responsibility to repair a leased vehicle unless they specifically agree otherwise with their insured. It also says that while repairs are being carried out, M will do their best to keep their customers mobile. It says: “Most replacements are small five-door hatchbacks…Other types of vehicles can take longer or might not be available. If this is not suitable because of your disability or adaptations, please mention this when you ask for a replacement. We’ll do our best to help but our priority is to find a solution to keep you mobile. Your contract does not guarantee a replacement vehicle.” So M did not guarantee a suitable hire car either. It wasn’t UKI’s responsibility to provide a replacement car or refund any travel costs. And so though Mr H did pay Mr H £180 to cover his travel costs, that wasn’t required under the policy but appears to have been a gesture of goodwill from UKI, or they could have been passing on a loss of use payment they had received from M. On reviewing the complaint UKI thought they should not have upheld it. However they did and they agreed to honour it. In any event, I don’t find anything persuasive requiring UKI to provide Mr H with a courtesy or car hire. Despite that, UKI did try to achieve that for Mr H, and in paying or arranging for payment of his travel costs, I think UKI acted fairly and reasonably. I know that Mr H wanted this Service to review the goodwill compensation offer amount. He said it was inconsistent, as UKI had previously compensated him more for a less serious issue. He felt that this showed a lack of fairness and consistency in how UKI handled complaints. But I can only look at UKI’s actions regarding this complaint, and this Service can’t ask a business to do something as a gesture of goodwill, but only to put things right where it gets things wrong. I sympathise with Mr H’s situation. I do see it was difficult for him being without a car. And I appreciate that Mr H may find the decision disappointing, but I think that UKI have acted fairly and reasonably towards him, and have not done anything wrong, and so I don’t ask them to do anything else.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons I've given above 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 Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 12 May 2026. Rosslyn Scott Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --