Acromas Insurance Company Limited · DRN-5954801

The complaint Mr G has complained about Acromas Insurance Company Limited’s decision to turn down his claim under his AA Parts and Garage Cover insurance policy. Any reference to Acromas includes its agents. What happened When the rear window on Mr G’s vehicle was down, the mechanism (regulator) that moved it up and down broke and it wouldn’t move. He called AA for assistance under his roadside assistance policy. He managed to get the car home and the AA treated it as a normal call out. But it then called him and advised him to try and get it fixed locally. He was unable to do this, but he managed to get a local mechanic to disengage the regulator and help him cover the window with cardboard and tape it up. Mr G then had the regulator replaced at a local dealership at a cost of just over £600. He then put a claim into Acromas under the abovementioned policy. Acromas turned the claim down on the basis that the policy does not cover glass or non- glass windows. And because Mr G’s vehicle had not suffered a breakdown. Mr G wasn’t happy and complained, but Acromas wouldn’t alter its position. So Mr G asked us to consider his complaint One of our investigators considered Mr G’s complaint and said it shouldn’t be upheld. Essentially this was because she thought Acromas’s view that Mr G’s vehicle had not suffered a breakdown was correct. She also mentioned the exclusion for windows. She also explained that Acromas had paid a similar claim made by Mr G in 2024 as a goodwill gesture. Mr G doesn’t agree with the investigator’s view and has asked for an ombudsman’s decision. He’s said that it remains his view that Acromas did not perform the service he was paying for. And that there was never any mention of the 2024 claim being settled as a goodwill gesture. He thinks that claim was paid simply because Acromas was providing the cover he’d paid for. And he thinks exactly the same incident occurred more recently, but Acromas simply took a different approach. As far as he is concerned, he could not have driven his vehicle around or parked it safely with a rear window covered with cardboard and black tape, especially with the weather in the UK. So, I take it from this that he thinks his car had effectively broken down. And he thinks Acromas has contravened the Trade Descriptions Act because it deceives customers to a material degree in terms of the cover it is offering. 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. Having done so, I’ve decided not to uphold it. As our investigator has explained I can only consider Acromas’s handling of Mr G’s claim

-- 1 of 3 --

under his Parts and Garage Cover, not AA’s approach to his request for assistance. AA and Acromas are separate companies. And we can’t consider complaints about roadside assistance provided by AA under our rules. First of all, I should say that I do not think Acromas is entitled to rely on the exclusion in respect of glass or non-glass windows. I say this because I think this exclusion is aimed at the windows themselves, not the mechanism that controls them. If it wasn’t, I think it would refer to both windows and window mechanisms. I should also say Acromas did not pay Mr G’s claim in 2024 as a goodwill gesture. I say this because its notes suggest it did so because it thought that at the time Mr G’s car was not safe to drive, as a front window was stuck open and it was January. So, I think it was unhelpful for Acromas to suggest it settled the claim as a goodwill gesture. However, the fact Acromas settled a similar claim in 2024 does not mean it needed to settle Mr G’s more recent claim. I say this for two reasons. Firstly, because – even if Acromas decision to settle the claim in 2024 was wrong – Mr G would have benefited and ended up having one claim paid out of two, instead of neither. Secondly, I think that Acromas is entitled to assess the circumstances of each claim it receives and make a judgement on whether the vehicle concerned met the definition of breakdown in the policy. And the type of electrical or mechanical issue with the vehicle and where the car is at the time, will be factors it needs to consider to determine this. As I’ve already alluded to, Mr G’s policy only covers claims towards repair costs or replacement of insured parts following a breakdown. And I can see why Acromas did not consider what happened to Mr G’s car on his more recent claim met the definition of breakdown under the policy. I say this because a breakdown is defined as follows: Breakdown: A sudden or unexpected event involving the Nominated vehicle: a) as a result of Mechanical or Electrical failure: and b) which has been attended by the AA under Your AA rnernbership: and c) that has prevented the Nominated Vehicle from starting or continuing its journey safely: and d) that requires the repair or replacement of insured part(s) to enable the journey to be resumed or - when At Home (Home Start) cover is held under Your AA membership – commenced. So the two key considerations are whether Mr G’s vehicle was attended by AA. And, whether it could continue or commence a journey safely with the fault. AA didn’t attend Mr G’s vehicle, presumably because it didn’t consider it was unsafe to drive it. However, if I thought AA was wrong on this and should have attended, I wouldn’t consider it fair for Acromas to decline Mr G’s claim because AA didn’t attend. This is because the aim of Mr G’s policy is to cover him following incidents AA should treat as a breakdown, not incidents they actually do. But, while I appreciate Mr G doesn’t think it was safe to drive his vehicle with cardboard and tape covering one of the rear windows, I disagree. Of course, I am not saying it was ideal or that there wasn’t a higher risk of theft or someone getting into the vehicle whilst it was parked, but these things do not mean it wasn’t actually safe to drive it. Had it been the front window and had Mr G been on the side of a motorway, I would probably take a different view. But he wasn’t, so I think Acromas’s view that the car was safe to drive was reasonable.

-- 2 of 3 --

And this means I consider it was entitled to decline Mr G’s claim on the basis his vehicle did not actually suffer a breakdown. So, I don’t think Acromas has contravened any legislation in providing its policy or treated Mr G unfairly in turning down his more recent claim. It therefore follows that I do not consider it would be appropriate for me to uphold Mr G’s complaint. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I’ve decided not to uphold Mr G’s complaint about Acromas Insurance Company Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Robert Short Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --