Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6166097

The complaint Mr S complains about Aviva Insurance Limited’s settlement of his travel insurance claim. What happened Mr S has travel insurance through his bank account, insured by Aviva. While travelling to the train station to get his pre-booked first class train to the airport for his flight he was told the train had been cancelled. He bought a replacement non-refundable standard class train ticket but that train was then severely delayed so to avoid missing the flight he took a taxi from the train station to the airport. The train ticket provider refunded the cost of the cancelled train. Mr S claimed on the policy for the costs of the replacement train ticket and taxi. Aviva said as Mr S didn’t miss his flight there was no cover under the policy terms for the additional expenses he claimed. But on a fair and reasonable basis it paid the taxi cost (less policy excess) as that was an additional cost to him. It said there was no cover for the cost of the replacement train ticket he didn’t use and as he had his original train ticket fare refunded the cost of the replacement wasn’t an additional expense for him. Mr S complained to us. He wants Aviva to pay for the replacement train ticket, plus interest. In summary he said: • His claim was covered under the ‘Unexpected costs’ policy section and he explained why he believed so. • Buying the replacement train ticket was a reasonable and cost effective decision based on the information available to him at the time. The ticket was significantly cheaper than immediately booking a taxi, which would have been disproportionate at that point. He only took a taxi when it became clear the train delay would mean he would miss his flight. • Aviva accepted the taxi fare as an additional cost arising from the disruption. So it was inconsistent not to also pay the replacement train ticket which arose from the same event and was bought as mitigation. Our Investigator said Aviva had reasonably settled the claim. Aviva had paid for the taxi cost and Mr S was refunded for his original train ticket, which was more than he paid for the replacement ticket, so he hadn’t incurred any additional costs. Mr S disagrees and wants an Ombudsman’s decision. In brief he added: • Our Investigator comparing a standard replacement ticket with the original first class ticket doesn’t reflect equivalence of service. • He’d been penalised for having minimised the insurer’s potential cost. If he’d just booked the taxi Aviva would have honoured the claim, because it paid for the taxi, and it wouldn’t have offset the refunded train ticket against the taxi fare. • As Aviva deducted the excess from his claim payment he wasn’t put into his original

-- 1 of 3 --

financial position and it not covering the cost undermined the fundamental purpose of travel disruption cover. 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. I’ve considered all the points Mr S has made. I won’t address all his points in my findings because I’ll focus on the reasons why I’ve made my decision and the key points which I think are relevant to the outcome of this complaint. The relevant regulator’s rules say that insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly and they mustn’t turn down (or settle) claims unreasonably. I’m sorry to disappoint Mr S but I think Aviva reasonably settled the claim. I’ll explain why. The ‘Unexpected costs’ policy section says: ‘What we’ll cover Travel disruption We’ll cover unexpected additional travel and accommodation costs to allow the insured person to continue their trip or to get home at the end of their trip, if their pre- paid travel plans are disrupted for the following reasons… 4. the insured person’s pre-booked travel arrangements are cancelled or delayed for more than 12 hours from the time shown on their ticket or diverted after departure. … Missed transport We’ll pay for alternative travel and accommodation costs to enable the insured person to reach their destination if their pre-booked transport is missed because of an unexpected transport delay, such as the vehicle they’re travelling in breaking down, or public transport being delayed or cancelled’. Mr S’ claim wasn’t covered by the missed transport policy terms as he didn’t miss his flight. I think potentially there may be cover under the above travel disruption policy wording. But I don’t need to make a finding about that because, even if I thought there was cover under the policy wording, the issue is that Aviva would only need to pay for the additional travel costs Mr S incurred. Mr S had the cost of his cancelled train refunded by the train ticket provider so he had no loss for that ticket. He was always going to have to pay for travel to the airport. Aviva paid him for the taxi costs he incurred and I can’t reasonably tell it to also pay the unused replacement train ticket as then in effect he would have travelled to the airport for no cost. Mr S says that’s not so because Aviva deducted the excess from the taxi cost it paid. But as he made a claim against the policy he was always going to have to pay the applicable excess, in line with the policy terms. If Aviva had paid the lesser cost of replacement travel I may have said on a fair and reasonable basis it should pay the higher cost, but it’s already done so as the taxi cost more than the replacement train ticket.

-- 2 of 3 --

The possible difference in service and comfort of the replacement train ticket being standard class when the original ticket was a first class seat doesn’t change my decision. I accept Mr S acted reasonably in buying the replacement train ticket on the information he had at the time and understand why he then took a taxi to the airport. But that doesn’t alter my reasoning above. And ultimately he didn’t minimise Aviva’s loss by buying the train ticket because he also claimed for the higher cost of the taxi, which it paid. Mr S says if he’d just booked the taxi Aviva would have paid the taxi cost and not offset the refunded train ticket against the taxi fare. I think it’s highly likely that Aviva would have offset the refunded train ticket cost as he was always going to have to pay for travel to the airport. Overall I’m satisfied that Aviva fairly and reasonably settled the claim. My final decision I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Nicola Sisk Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --