Atlanta Insurance Intermediaries Limited · DRN-6259501

The complaint Miss T has complained that the broker Atlanta Insurance Intermediaries Limited incorrectly set out her No Claims Discount (NCD) as fewer years at renewal. She is unhappy with the way Atlanta communicated with her about a claim she made to a third party insurer. What happened Miss T bought a car insurance policy through the broker Atlanta in July 2024. In October 2024 a third party hit her car. The third party insurer (TPI) accepted liability on behalf of their driver for the incident. Miss T reported the incident to Atlanta who put her in touch with a credit hire/repair company. Miss T decided not to proceed with her claim through the credit hire company. She made a claim against the TPI through a different representative. At renewal, Atlanta as her broker provided a renewal invitation. The renewal premium reflected the fact there was an open claim from October 2024, even though Miss T hadn’t made a claim against her policy. At the time of the renewal, Miss T’s claim hadn’t closed as some of her costs were being disputed by the TPI. Miss T complained to Atlanta as she didn’t agree her NCD should be reduced to reflect an incident that wasn’t her fault. She said as the TPI had accepted liability, and she didn’t make a claim against her car insurance policy, there should be no impact on her NCD. Miss T said Atlanta has ignored communication from her by email and in calls. Miss T was unhappy that the renewal quote offered by Atlanta was from the TPI for her claim. In August 2025 Atlanta upheld Miss T’s complaint in part. It apologised for a delay in replying to earlier emails she had sent. For the distress and inconvenience caused, it paid Miss T £50 compensation. Atlanta said Miss T’s insurer (prior to renewal) wasn’t aware of the incident and suggested Miss T contact it directly to notify it. Atlanta said it had contacted Miss T’s solicitors dealing with the recovery of her claim costs from the TPI. Atlanta said they confirmed the claim was still open as the claim costs had not been settled. Atlanta said it had used the correct number of NCD years when providing a renewal premium. Atlanta explained that as a broker, it provided a renewal premium from the panel of insurers it uses and the best available rate was one provided by the TPI. Miss T remained unhappy and asked us to look at her complaint. She said Atlanta had contacted the TPI and her solicitors without her consent and breached her data. Miss T believes Atlanta and the TPI have acted incorrectly in reducing her NCD; that her claim has been compromised by the relationship between the two parties as Atlanta hasn’t acted in her best interests. Miss T said she has brought a separate complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as she believes there is a conflict of interest. One of our Investigators explained that he looked at the role of the broker in providing information to Miss T at renewal. As an incident had occurred and a claim had been made, the Investigator found Atlanta had correctly updated the number of NCD years and the open claim when providing a renewal premium.

-- 1 of 4 --

Miss T disagreed and wanted an ombudsman to decide. In summary she said her complaint was not only about the reduction in her NCD. She’s very unhappy with the way Atlanta communicated with her and how it treated her. Miss T said she is unhappy with the way Atlanta handled her complaint. I issued a provisional decision on 11 March 2026. I intended to uphold the complaint in part and to ask Atlanta to pay Miss T £200 compensation in addition to the £50 already paid. I thought Atlanta had provided a poor service in failing to inform her insurer in October 2024 of the incident as a notification only. I thought if it had done this, Miss T wouldn’t have been put to the distress and inconvenience it caused at renewal. Miss T accepted my provisional decision. Atlanta didn’t reply. So as the deadline to reply has now passed, the case has been passed back to me for a final decision. 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. As I haven’t received any new information, my final decision is on the same lines as my provisional decision. I understand that when Miss T reported the incident to Atlanta, as she said it was a non-fault incident, Atlanta referred Miss T to a third party credit hire company to recover Miss T’s uninsured losses. I’ve looked at what Miss T’s policy says in relation to what Atlanta will do in its role as a broker in the event of a claim. “Claims In the unfortunate event that an incident occurs which may give rise to a motor claim, whether fault or non-fault, it is your duty to inform your insurers without delay. All correspondence received from any third party must be forwarded to us immediately upon receipt, failure to do so may prejudice your insurer’s position and they may seek recompense from you for such loss. As part of our service to you we also offer assistance with any motor claim you may need to make including, if required, the recovery of any uninsured losses you may incur. This service is administered & provided by (name of business inserted here) who may in the event of a non-fault accident, provide you with a replacement vehicle for the period your vehicle is off the road. Free Claim Assistance to pursue any losses you may incur will be provided. Please note this service is not an insurance policy and as such is not governed by the personal customer code.” I asked Atlanta for clarification as to the background of Miss T’s complaint. In response, Although Atlanta said in its response to the complaint that it was for Miss T to notify her insurer, Atlanta now says it should have notified her insurer in October 2024 of the incident. Atlanta says the insurer would have updated its record to show the incident as ‘notification only’ or ‘information only’. This is because – as Miss T said – she didn’t make a claim against her policy. It therefore follows that had Atlanta done this, Miss T’s renewal invite would have shown her NCB years correctly as nine years, and not reduced to three years due to an open claim. Despite Miss T’s complaint, Atlanta did not put things right here and said Miss T’s NCD years had been correctly reduced. Atlanta now accepts that it didn’t properly investigate this before replying to Miss T’s complaint. I’ve listened to key call recordings from 6 June 2025 when Miss T discussed her concerns as to the reduction in her NCD and the increase in premium offered at renewal for 6 July 2025.

-- 2 of 4 --

I found the information given to Miss T was not made clear by Atlanta’s agents. I don’t think they were sure of the information they were relaying to her. I can completely understand Miss T’s frustration in these calls. So I don’t think the apology and compensation award of £50 Atlanta paid Miss T is enough to resolve her complaint. I have no doubt that Atlanta’s poor handling of the renewal process for Miss T caused considerable unnecessary distress and inconvenience. I don’t find that Atlanta treated Miss T fairly. I have set out my intended remedy later in my decision. I understand Miss T is unhappy with the following statement by Atlanta in its response to her complaint: “Today, I’ve contacted your solicitors at (name inserted here) to discuss the matter further, especially since they contacted us regarding any additional claim costs that might have been incurred. They’ve informed us that a hire car was provided through Enterprise as of 23 October 2024, and that by arranging this on your own, the offer from (TPI named here) to manage the claim on your behalf was declined.” Miss T says her solicitor denies such a discussion took place. And she says she didn’t decline the offer from the TPI. She gave a letter she received from the TPI to her representative who informed her it would deal with matters on Miss T’s behalf. Miss T says it was not necessary for Atlanta to contact either party about her claim. From listening to the call recordings from 6 June 2025, it seems clear that Miss T decided to proceed with her chosen representative as she didn’t want to proceed with the credit hire repair company. In its final response letter, Atlanta didn’t say that Miss T declined the offer, but that the offer was declined. From what Miss T says, contact with the TPI was dealt with by her representative. However, I see no reason why Atlanta needed to make contact with either party in relation to the claim in order to resolve Miss T’s complaint about her NCD. I think this stemmed from its failure to notify the insurer of the incident in October 2024. So I think Atlanta acted unreasonably here. As a broker, Atlanta’s role is to provide a renewal premium from its panel of insurers, which include the TPI. I don’t think it acted unreasonably in providing their quote to Miss T. It was the most competitive one at the time (although based on incorrect information) from the panel of insurers it uses. Miss T didn’t want to buy an insurance policy with the TPI and this is her choice. But that doesn’t mean Atlanta did anything wrong in providing a quotation by them. Atlanta offered to provide an alternative quote from the remaining insurers on the panel. Miss T provided this service with a copy of an email she received from the ICO. She says she believes this shows we can investigate her complaint and request for compensation for the way Atlanta handled her personal information. I asked Miss T via the Investigator to clarify her request as it isn’t clear to me. Miss T hasn’t replied. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that Atlanta breached Miss T’s personal data. Nor have I seen anything to show that Atlanta’s attempt (which it says was unsuccessful) to contact the TPI to discuss the claim had any bearing on the disputed costs element of that claim. I appreciate that Miss T was very unhappy with the way the TPI was handling her claim, but I don’t find anything to suggest Atlanta played any part in that. However, I think Atlanta should pay Miss T a further £200 compensation for failing to update Miss T’s insurer in October 2024, failing to provide accurate renewal documentation, failing to provide clear responses to Miss T in calls on 6 June 2025 and making unnecessary contact with third parties in relation to Miss T’s claim. I can understand these failures caused

-- 3 of 4 --

Miss T distress and inconvenience. She rightly challenged the reduction in her NCD years at renewal and Atlanta failed to properly investigate and put things right. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require Atlanta Insurance Intermediaries Limited to do the following: • Pay Miss T £200 in addition to the £50 compensation it already paid for the distress and inconvenience it caused her by its poor service. Atlanta Insurance Intermediaries Limited must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it Miss T accepts my final decision. If it pays later than this it must also pay interest on the compensation from the date of my final decision to the date of payment at a simple rate of 8% a year. If Atlanta Insurance Intermediaries Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to withhold income tax from that interest, it should tell Miss T how much it’s taken off. It should also give Miss T a tax deduction certificate if she asks for one, so she can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss T to accept or reject my decision before 25 April 2026. Geraldine Newbold Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --