Watford Insurance Company Europe Limited · DRN-6235508

The complaint Mr M complained about Watford Insurance Company Europe Limited’s service when he claimed under his policy. What happened Mr M’s car was stolen and recovered damaged. Watford paid for its repair apart from what they said was pre-existing damage to the car. Mr M said that damage hadn’t been there before the theft. He wanted Watford to repair that too. Mr M also said that Watford took too long to authorise the repairs, so he was without his car for longer than necessary and incurred travel costs because Watford didn’t give him a courtesy car. He also wanted Watford to reimburse the cost of his stolen personal items. Watford accepted that there had been delays and offered Mr M compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience he claimed. But they thought they’d acted fairly as regards the other aspects of Mr M’s complaint. They said Mr M wasn’t entitled to a hire car because he used his own choice of garage for the repairs, and the personal items he claimed were electrical items which were not covered under the policy. The investigator recommended that his complaint should be partially upheld and that Watford should reimburse Mr M’s travel costs and the personal items covered under the policy, but should not repair the pre-existing damage. They thought that the compensation Watford offered didn’t reflect the level of inconvenience caused to him, and that Watford should increase it to £200. Watford agreed to that compensation amount. But they didn’t agree to the reimbursements, 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. Pre-existing damage As the investigator explained, it’s not our role to decide how or when a car has been damaged, as that is a matter for the experts in these situations, the insurers, and engineers. Our role in these complaints is to determine if the insurer has considered all the available evidence and whether they can justify on the evidence their decision that the damage was not caused during an accident or, as in this case, the theft. Mr M said he’d bought his car new only three months before the theft and there hadn’t been any previous damage as far as he knew. However Watford obtained an independent engineer’s report that there was some damage which was pre-existing. That report is a detailed and comprehensive analysis, and I’ve not been shown any other expert independent evidence otherwise. So I think that Watford were entitled to rely on it and it was

-- 1 of 3 --

not unreasonable or unfair for them to decide that the specific damage was pre‑existing and not caused by or during the theft. And so I don’t require them to do anything further there. Delays It was around two months from the car’s recovery before Watford authorised its repair. Watford accepted that they delayed there and offered Mr M compensation of £100 for that. As this was Mr M’s only car, and he had a young baby, I think that the £200 the investigator recommended better reflects the level of inconvenience caused him. I see that Watford have agreed to that. Watford wouldn’t pay Mr M’s travel expenses. They said the policy didn’t allow for a courtesy car because Mr M chose his own garage for the repairs rather than use Watford ’s authorised repairers. But regardless of what the policy says, Watford have accepted that they caused delay. And that delay resulted in Mr M being unable to use his car for an extended period. In our view an insurer must in these circumstances reimburse for loss of use. So I think that in this case it would be fair for Watford to reimburse Mr M’s receipted travel expenses that he can show were incurred in the period between the car’s recovery after the theft and the date the repairs were completed. Personal Belongings Watford have shown that they reimbursed Mr M for his baby car seat to the specific policy limit of £150 for a car seat. Mr M also claimed for his car’s MOT and service book, a wireless car play adapter and a phone charger. There is also mention of a jacket but without further identifying details. Watford said that these other items claimed were not covered under the policy. I’ve Iooked at his policy. I see that it does exclude documents from cover, so Mr M’s MOT and service book would not be covered. The policy also excludes from cover “laptops, mobile phones, smart phones, tablets or portable electronic navigational equipment “ . But Mr M’s above claimed items, as a music car play device and a phone charger, don’t appear to fall within that definition. So I think that Watford should reimburse him for those subject to the £500 Personal Belongings policy limit. The same should apply for the jacket if Mr M can identify it and receipt it if Watford require under the policy. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above, I partly uphold the complaint. I require Watford Insurance Company Europe Limited to: • Reimburse Mr M for all receipted travel and hire costs incurred while he was without use of his car, plus interest at 8% simple for the date Mr M incurred them until the date Watford reimburse them. • Reimburse Mr M for all receipted personal belongings covered under the policy. • Pay Mr M £200 in compensation for his distress and inconvenience, less any amount they may have paid him for that already . If Watford consider that they are required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, they should tell Mr M how much they’ve taken off. They should also give Mr M a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate.

-- 2 of 3 --

Watford must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell them Mr M accepts my final decision. If they pay later than this, they must also pay interest on the compensation from the date of my final decision to the date of payment at 8% a year simple. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 11 May 2026. Rosslyn Scott Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --