Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited · DRN-6069560

The complaint B complains about how a claim was handled by Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited on their commercial motor insurance policy. What happened B’s van was stolen and they raised a claim with GL. The claim was initially declined, however, after further information was provided by B, GL accepted the claim and made payment. B was unhappy with the communication received and delays. He was also unhappy the policy was cancelled without notice and they didn’t receive a pro-rata refund of premiums. GL didn’t uphold B’s complaint. Still unhappy, B brought the complaint to this service. Our investigator upheld B’s complaint. They thought there had been some delays which GL should compensate B for. GL appealed. They said the claim was only paid as a gesture of goodwill and a deduction could have been made for pre-existing damage. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to make 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. When considering complaints such as this, I need to consider the relevant law, rules and industry guidelines. The relevant rules, set up by the Financial Conduct Authority, say that an insurer must deal with a claim promptly and fairly. So, I’ve thought about whether GL acted in line with these requirements with how they handled B’s claim. At the outset I acknowledge that I’ve summarised their complaint in far less detail than B has, and in my own words. I’m not going to respond to every single point made. No discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. The rules that govern the Financial Ombudsman Service allow me to do this as it’s an informal dispute resolution service. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve overlooked it. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual point to be able to reach an outcome in line with my statutory remit. I’ve addressed the three complaint points below separately for ease. Delays Having reviewed the timeline of events, I do think there have been some delays in the handling of the claim. The claim was declined without discussing the circumstances with B initially. Once B was aware of the information GL needed, they were able to provide it soon after. It also then took a long time for GL to review the information provided and make a decision on accepting the claim. I think there has been about 10 weeks of delays as a result. During this time, B was hiring a

-- 1 of 3 --

replacement van. So, I think GL should cover 10 weeks of B’s rental costs. In response to our investigator’s view, GL have said the claim was only accepted as a gesture of goodwill. They’ve also said they didn’t make any deductions for pre-existing damage to the vehicle. I’ve thought about these points, but they don’t change the outcome in my opinion. I’ve not seen anything to suggest the claim wasn’t being covered under the contractual obligations of the policy. They have concerns about the finance agreement in place for the van but this was considered by GL and full settlement was offered. GL had the opportunity to request further information about the circumstances from B if they wanted to but chose not to. There is also no detail about the pre-existing damage costs. B had collected the van from a garage following a repair. The van broke down on the way back and was then stolen from that location. We don’t know what exactly was wrong with the van or the costs to fix it. However, it seems likely the repair had failed and this would have been covered by the garage that had previously attempted the repair. I don’t think it’s fair to make a deduction for damage which B likely hadn’t caused, had already paid to be repaired and could have been a minor cost to sort. In there being a delay in handling the claim, I think it has caused B inconvenience. It’s taken up his time in having to contact GL for updates. It’s also meant they had to arrange hire vehicles. I think it’s caused B an unreasonable amount of inconvenience which has required a reasonable amount of effort to sort out. So, I think GL should pay B £100 for the inconvenience caused. Cancellation The day B’s policy ended, GL wrote to B’s broker to inform them. GL have said the policy ceased as there was no insurable interest after the van was stolen. Whilst this technically was the case, this service has a long-standing approach that insurers should allow a policyholder to replace the vehicle on cover should the original vehicle be stolen or deemed a total loss. So, I think GL should have provided B with notice the policy would end. B has said had they been aware, they would have brought a replacement van to put on cover. I’ve considered the circumstances, but even if GL had provided notice, I don’t think B would have replaced the van. This is because they’ve told us they weren’t able to replace the vehicle until December 2025 due to financial difficulties. The claim was settled in March 2025 and the policy ended in October 2024. Based on what I’ve seen, whilst I think GL could have done more, I don’t think it’s led to a detriment to B as a result. So, I won’t be asking GL to do anything in relation to this point. Premium refund B says that the policy terms state they’re entitled to a refund of premiums if the policy was cancelled. The policy terms do say this. However, they also state that no refund will be given in the event of a claim on the policy. This is standard industry practice as the policy is a 12 month contract and not pay-as-you-go. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that GL won’t refund any of the premiums based on the circumstances. Putting things right To put things right, I think GL should do the following: • Reimburse B 10 weeks’ worth of van rental costs. • Pay 8% simple interest* on the above, from the date the invoices were paid, to the date the payment is made. • Pay £100 compensation for the trouble and upset caused.

-- 2 of 3 --

* If GL considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct tax from that interest, it should tell B how much it has taken off. It should also give B a tax deduction certificate if they ask for one, so they can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I uphold this complaint and direct Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited to put things right by doing as I’ve said above, if they haven’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask B to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Anthony Mullins Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --