U K Insurance Limited · DRN-6064955

The complaint Mr K complains that U K Insurance Limited (“UKI”) mishandled his claim on a breakdown insurance policy. What happened Mr K had European breakdown cover for his motorcycle. UKI was responsible for dealing with any claim. On 26 October 2025, Mr K was riding the motorbike in continental Europe when, unfortunately, it suffered a punctured rear tyre. Mr K contacted UKI and later complained to UKI about its service. That included transport arrangements and communication. It also included the specification of the replacement tyre. By a final response dated 19 November 2025, UKI apologised for poor communication and said it had sent a cheque for £150.00 compensation. UKI turned down the complaint about the tyre. Mr K brought his complaint to us the same day. He said that the repairer had ordered a front tyre and put it on the rear wheel at a cost of about 160 Euros. He said that tyre got him back to the UK, where he paid about £100.00 for the correct replacement of the tyre. In answer to our standard question of how he would like UKI to put things right, Mr K said the following: “Apologise for giving the wrong information and refund the cost of one of the tyres. I don't expect them to pay for both, but this was their mistake. If they had supplied the correct information then I would not be making this complaint now. They are blaming their mistake on a garage I had no control over, that they chose.” Our investigator didn’t recommend that the complaint should be upheld. He thought that UKI treated Mr K fairly under the policy terms. Mr K disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. He asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. He says, in summary, that: • He didn't have a contact with the tyre company. He had no control over who UKI used, or what information they supplied to the tyre company. • UKI gave the wrong information to the tyre company, causing them to order and install the wrong tyre. • He asked us to direct UKI to pay for the correct tyre, which was cheaper than the one they asked the tyre company to supply and fit. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. UKI’s policy didn’t cover the cost of garage labour or of spare parts such as tyres. The policy terms included the following: “SECTION 2. ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE AND TOWING … Following a breakdown we will arrange and pay for: • Labour and call-out charges involved in providing roadside assistance after a breakdown within the geographical limits, if there is a reasonable chance that the roadside assistance will make the insured vehicle fit to drive; or • The insured vehicle to be taken to the nearest local repairer or safe storage place after a breakdown. The most we’ll pay in total towards these things is £250. Please note You must pay for the reasonable cost of all spare parts, garage labour and materials used by the local repairer in repairing the Insured Vehicle.” From that, I consider that, whilst UKI would choose the nearest local repairer, the policyholder would be responsible for giving instructions to the local repairer. The policy terms also included the following: 18.We are not responsible for the actions or costs of garages, recovery firms or emergency services acting on your instructions or the instructions of anyone acting for you and cannot be held liable for them” Mr K was already in a difficult situation when he contacted UKI. That’s why he contacted UKI. UKI was under an obligation to respond promptly and fairly. UKI arranged recovery of the bike to a local repairer. UKI also arranged a hotel for Mr K. In my view, the completion of the repair was outside the scope of the policy. Mr K and the garage had hands-on access to the bike and its damaged tyre. Keeping in mind the policy terms, I consider that it was between Mr K and the repairer to determine the choice of an appropriate tyre. I don’t accept that was UKI’s responsibility. Mr K extended his stay in the hotel, but UKI later refunded the costs of that. In response to the investigator’s opinion, Mr K made it clear that he had not asked us to direct UKI to pay him compensation for his time, inconvenience and stress. So I don’t find it fair and reasonable to direct UKI to do any more in that respect. As the choice of an appropriate tyre was between Mr K and the repairer, I don’t find it fair and reasonable to direct UKI to reimburse Mr K for the cost of the tyre fitted abroad or the replacement in the UK. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t direct U K Insurance Limited to do any more in response to this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 13 May 2026. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --