Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6248193

The complaint Mrs D complained that Aviva Insurance Limited (“Aviva”) unfairly held her liable for an accident with another vehicle, under her motor insurance policy. What happened In May 2025 Mrs D said she drove past a vehicle whilst taking her daughter to school. After she pulled into a carpark, she discovered the driver of the other vehicle had followed her. He confronted her and alleged that she had collided with his car. Mrs D said he asked for cash to cover the repairs. She didn’t provide cash, but did give her name and insurance details. Mrs D said the third party (“TP”) subsequently claimed against her policy. Mrs D said Aviva asked her to provide photos of her car months after the incident. By this time the car had been washed. She said there was a mark on her car door prior to washing it, that was caused by another car door opening onto her door. She said Aviva indicated she had removed evidence of this mark as it was related to the incident. Since this time Mrs D said Aviva has settled the claim recording her at-fault. She didn’t think this was fair and complained. In its final complaint response Aviva told Mrs D that it had referred this claim to its arbitration team. After reviewing the testimony and photos the team determined that it would have to accept liability for the claim against Mrs D’s policy. But the business said it should have contacted her to explain the reasons for its decision in more detail. For its lack of communication it apologised and offered her £110 compensation. Mrs D maintained that Aviva had treated her unfairly and referred the matter to our service. Our investigator didn’t uphold her complaint. She thought Aviva had conducted an appropriate investigation into the claim, and had based its decision of the available evidence. She said the compensation offered was fair for the poor communication. Mrs D didn’t accept our investigator’s findings and asked for an ombudsman to consider her complaint. It has been passed to me to decide. I issued a provisional decision in March 2026 explaining that I was intending to uphold Mrs D’s complaint. Here’s what I said: provisional findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so my intention is to uphold this complaint. Let me explain. Mrs D’s policy says:

-- 1 of 3 --

“..we can take over and conduct in the name of the person claiming under the policy the defence or settlement of any claim or take proceedings for our own benefit to recover any payment we have made under this policy. We shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or the settlement of any claim.” This is a common term found in most motor insurance policies. It means that it’s up to Aviva to decide how to deal with a claim. It doesn’t need Mrs D’s permission to do so. But, this doesn’t mean Aviva can do just anything it wants. It must still treat its policyholders fairly. I’ve considered whether it did so here. Mrs D has made no claim for damage to her car. The claim is limited to the TP’s damage and hire car costs. I can’t see from the photos Mrs D sent to Aviva, that there is visible damage or any marks on her car in the area that reportedly collided with the TP’s car. That said the photos taken by the TP do show a mark to the nearside rear passenger door of Mrs D’s car. This is to the front of the rear wheel arch. Mrs D explained that she was aware of this mark prior to the TP confronting her. She said it had happened some time before in a supermarket car park. I’ve read the arbitration report that Aviva provided. The one concern raised by the arbiter was that there was damage showing in the TP’s photo. He said Mrs D must have been aware of these marks and had washed them off, without mentioning it. The arbiter indicated that this would affect the credibility of Mrs D’s position, with regards to the circumstances and liability, if the case was heard in court. I’ve thought carefully about the arbiter’s findings. I agree that a mark on Mrs D’s car corresponding with the position of the damage on the TP’s car would constitute possible evidence of an impact. But from looking at the images provided, the mark on Mrs D’s car is visibly lower than the damage highlighted on the TP’s car. Mrs D raised this concern with Aviva. But it hasn’t arranged for an inspection of the damage to ascertain whether the damage was corresponding. I acknowledge the mark on Mrs D’s car was washed off prior to her summer holiday. But the photo showing where this was positioned would have allowed a reasonably accurate assessment of the height of any possible impact. The same was possible with the TP’s car. I understand the arbiter’s concern about the mark that was washed off Mrs D’s car and what this potentially implied. However, Mrs D has explained she was not asked for photos until some months after the incident. So, it’s not unreasonable to expect that she would have washed her car over that period. If there was damage, I think Mrs D makes a fair point that some sign of a mark would still be visible after the car was cleaned. From the photos I’ve seen there is no visible sign of any marks in this area. The arbiter refers to the balance of probability lying in favour of the TP if the matter went to court. But Aviva is expected to make a decision based on the facts and evidence. It didn’t take steps to confirm the height at which the damage was observed – despite the photos indicating a difference between the two. This evidence is material to determining liability and should have been obtained. In not doing so I don’t think Aviva treated Mrs D fairly in how it handled the matter and how it determined liability. Aviva has referred to this as a fault claim against Mrs D. This terminology can be unhelpful. What it means is that Aviva was unable to recover its outlay for the repairs and hire costs claimed by the TP. So it will record the claim on the Claims and Underwriting Exchange (“CUE”) database showing Mrs D’s no-claims bonus as “disallowed”. But I don’t this is fair for the reasons already explained. Having considered all of this my intention is that Aviva should amend the CUE database

-- 2 of 3 --

record, and any internal records to show as “bonus allowed”. It should do this so that Mrs D’s insurance premiums are not impacted by the record currently in place. She can contact her insurer(s) once the record is amended to request a premium refund where this is due. I’ve thought about the impact all of this had on Mrs D. The incident with the TP caused her some distress. This was exacerbated when Aviva didn’t complete a reasonable investigation of the claim. For the distress and inconvenience this has caused her, Aviva should pay her compensation. I think £300 is fair. I asked both parties to send me any further comments and information they might want me to consider before I reached a final decision. Aviva didn’t respond with any further comments or evidence for me to consider. Mrs D responded to say that she accepted my provisional 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 neither party has made any further submissions or provided further evidence for me to consider, I see no reason to change my provisional findings. So, my final decision is the same as my provisional decision and for the same reasons. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Aviva Insurance Limited should: • update the CUE record to show as bonus allowed, and • pay Mrs D £300 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs D to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --