esure Insurance Limited · DRN-5957889

The complaint Mr L has complained esure Insurance Limited (esure) didn’t pay a fair settlement for his car under his motor insurance policy after it suffered water ingress. What happened Mr L’s car suffered water ingress and he made a claim on his motor insurance policy with esure. esure accepted the claim and, after their engineers assessed the damage, considered the car a total loss. esure thought a fair market value for his car was £15,579 so paid Mr L a settlement of that amount less his excess. Mr L thought his car was worth more and complained about esure’s valuation. He also complained about how esure handled the claim more generally. When esure responded to Mr L’s complaint, they maintained they had paid Mr L a fair market value but acknowledged delays in coming to a figure. Mr L referred his complaint to this Service as he thought between £20,000 and £25,000 would be a true reflection of how much his car is worth. esure didn’t agree to increase the claim settlement but offered £100 in compensation for service failings. An Investigator looked into what happened. He thought esure’s valuation was fair but felt £250 was a more appropriate amount of compensation in the circumstances. esure didn’t think their initial offer of compensation was unfair but agreed to the Investigator’s outcome to not prolong matters. Mr L disagreed and said esure’s valuation didn’t reflect the retail value at the time of loss. He also thought the Investigator didn’t adequately consider delays, communication issues, and being left without a vehicle for an extended period of time. The complaint couldn’t be resolved so it has come to me 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. As ours is an informal service, I’m not going to comment on every point or piece of evidence Mr L and esure sent us. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be key or central to the complaint. But I’d like to reassure both that I have considered everything submitted. Did esure pay a fair value for Mr L’s car? This Service doesn’t value cars. Instead, we check to see that an insurer’s valuation is fair and reasonable and in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. To do this we tend to use relevant valuation guides. We generally find these persuasive as they’re based on nationwide research of sales prices. We also consider other evidence that the parties submit (like adverts and engineer reports) to determine whether an insurer came to a fair outcome. Mr L’s policy includes cover in the event his car is damaged. It says esure will pay no more than the car’s market value. And the policy defines market value as the amount Mr L could reasonably have expected to sell his car for on the open market immediately before his loss. And that esure’s assessment of the value is based on cars of the same make and model and

-- 1 of 3 --

of a similar age, condition, and mileage at the time of loss. esure need to effectively show their valuation is enough to allow Mr L to purchase a replacement car. That doesn’t necessarily mean they need to offer the highest valuation available. But if their valuation isn’t close to the highest valuation returned from the guides we look at, they would need to evidence this is fair. When esure reviewed the value of Mr L’s car, they looked at three motor guides to produce values at the time of loss. These were values of £15,266, £16,098, and £13,860 respectively. esure considered the guides – as well as market examples – and thought £15,579 was a fair market value for Mr L’s car. This Service also ran one other guide which valued the car at £15,810. £16,098 is the highest valuation from the guides – although £15,579 isn’t too far off this amount, esure have also provided adverts from around the time of loss which they think supports their position. Mr L’s car was a ‘standard equipment’ version of the vehicle registered in 2020 with around 62,900 miles on the odometer when the incident happened. esure’s adverts were collated around mid-September 2025. They are for cars with the same make and model from the same year as Mr L’s car and were all SE versions of the car. These are some other relevant details from the respective adverts: • Mileage of 63,224 selling for £15,251. • Mileage of 63,922 selling for £15,990. • Mileage of 67,000 selling for £15,495. The mileage on all three cars was similar to Mr L’s and were selling close to what esure thought was a fair market value. Mr L also submitted several adverts. They were all higher specification (HSE) versions of the car as opposed to SE ones and were from 2020 and 2021. Here are some other relevant details from some of Mr L’s adverts: • Mileage of 25,393 miles, selling for £18,999. • Mileage of 24,000 miles, selling for £29,950. • Mileage of 48,000 miles, selling for £20,999. • Mileage of 45,685 miles, selling for £21,990. There were several other adverts in the same price range, but I couldn’t see all details (like the mileage) on the screenshots that would help me understand how they compare to his car. The adverts he sent this Service showed cars that were selling for more than esure’s valuation. But they were generally for cars with higher specifications and lower mileage. I don’t find these adverts as persuasive as the guides or esure’s adverts. Although it may have been possible to purchase a car for more, esure’s adverts show cars like Mr L’s were available for around the amount esure valued his car for at around the time of loss. Mr L has argued his car was in good condition with a full service history; no accidents; no warning lights; and a recent MOT with no advisories. I accept Mr L’s car was likely in good condition and this may have made his vehicle potentially more attractive to someone looking to buy a vehicle, but I’m not persuaded these factors would have increased the market value. After considering the evidence available including the adverts submitted, I’m satisfied that it’s reasonable for esure to consider their figure of around £15,579 was a fair market value for Mr L’s car in line with the policy terms. So, I won’t be directing them to pay Mr L any more for

-- 2 of 3 --

his car. Did esure do enough to put things right after failing to handle Mr L’s claim fairly? esure have an obligation to handle claims promptly and fairly. From what I’ve seen, it took three weeks from esure first receiving the car to settling the claim. esure have acknowledged they caused delays in obtaining an engineer’s report after the incident. They said since Mr L’s car had water damage, additional images needed to be obtained, and these were required before the engineer could correctly value his car. And that gathering this information caused the delay. Although I think the short delay in valuing Mr L’s car would have been frustrating, there were other service issues that will have caused Mr L additional distress for which I think compensation is warranted. From the notes I’ve seen, Mr L was told he would be updated but he had to chase for updates; he was told he’d have a report within several days, but it took around double that time; and he was given conflicting information from different agents of esure. I appreciate Mr L believes he was left without a car for an extended period, but I think esure issued payment promptly after considering Mr L’s reasons for why he thought the valuation should be increased. And I don’t hold esure responsible for Mr L not purchasing a replacement car as I’ve found their valuation was fair. Ultimately, I think the £250 the Investigator recommended is an appropriate amount in the circumstances, and I’m directing esure to pay this. My final decision I partially uphold this complaint and direct esure Insurance Limited to pay Mr L £250. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Andrew Wakatsuki-Robinson Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --