Advantage Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6117838

The complaint Mr G complains that Advantage Insurance Company Limited (“Advantage”) is responsible for mishandling a claim on his motor insurance policy. What happened In about 2014, a car-maker made a luxury sports utility vehicle. In about April 2025, Mr G acquired the vehicle. For the year from mid-April 2025, Mr G had the car insured on a comprehensive policy. The policy was in the name of an insurance intermediary associated with Advantage. Advantage was the insurance company that was responsible for dealing with any claim. Any claim for damage, (except only to glass) was subject to an excess of £495.00. Unfortunately, on about 28 July 2025, the vehicle and a third party’s vehicle were involved in an incident. Much of the complaint is about acts, omissions or communications by the intermediary on behalf of Advantage. Insofar as I hold it responsible for them, I may refer to them as acts, omissions or communications of Advantage. After Mr G reported the incident, Advantage said that the third party would be held liable in full. Later, Advantage said that Mr G would be liable in part. Mr G complained to Advantage including about: • its stance on liability • having to pay the excess • substandard repairs By a final response dated 11 September 2025, Advantage accepted the complaint in part and said it was sending Mr G £150.00 compensation for inconvenience and frustration. In late November 2025, Mr G brought us his complaint about Advantage’s stance on liability. Our investigator didn’t recommend that the complaint should be upheld. She thought that Advantage had acted reasonably in the circumstances of this complaint. Mr G disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. He asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. He says, in summary, that: • The third party was going from the minor road to a major road. She did not look to

-- 1 of 3 --

her right. • He had started his overtake before the third party got to the give way sign. • As she pulled out, he stopped without a collision. • She continued and hit the driver’s side rear of his car. • Advantage had the video evidence on 31 July 2025. • He paid the excess. • Months later, Advantage sent him an email, saying that he was not being held responsible and that it was returning his excess. • Advantage changed its mind. 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. An insurer may make an outlay on a claim, for example the cost of repairs. Where an insurer has made an outlay, it’s common practice for that insurer to record a fault claim against its policyholder unless and until that insurer recovers its outlay in full, typically for a liable third party’s insurer. Where the insurer agrees with a third party’s insurer that liability is split, e.g. 50/50, each insurer recovers its outlay in part but not in full. So each insurer may record a fault claim against its policyholder. The policy terms included the following: ‘Your insurer has the right to: • Carry out the repair; and • Take over and conduct the defence or settlement of any claim under the policy for its own benefit. This includes taking proceedings in your name, or in the name of any other person claiming under the policy, at its own expense. Save in respect of the excess, your insurer has the right to retain sums recovered in full insofar as they reflect the diminution in value of the vehicle. These actions may be taken in your name or the name of any insured person.’ The effect of that term was that, on a question of how best to deal with a claim involving a third party, Advantage’s view would prevail over its policyholder’s view. That’s not uncommon in motor insurance policies. I will consider whether Advantage took into account all available evidence and treated Mr G fairly. Unlike a court, we don’t hear evidence form each driver and decide the extent to which either of them is responsible for causing injury or damage. I accept that Mr G was on the major road. I also accept that the third party was turning right from a minor road. And she ended up hitting the offside rear of Mr G’s vehicle. I’ve seen Advantage’s emailed letter dated 21 August 2025. It included the following: “Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to get the other person involved or their insurers to admit they were responsible for the incident yet.

-- 2 of 3 --

However, based on the circumstances of the incident and any additional information you’ve given us, we believe they are responsible. This means we’ve been able to waive your policy excess (so you don’t have to pay this) and you’ll also keep your no claims discount.” However, the same letter also asked Mr G for further information including dashcam footage. So I don’t think that Advantage’s letter dated 21 August 2025 took into account a review of Mr G’s dashcam footage. Mr G says that there were no road markings prohibiting him from overtaking. However, his dashcam footage shows him passing an arrow in the middle of the road directing him into the left lane (a “no overtaking” arrow) – and then another one. The footage shows him crossing a hatched area in the middle of the road to overtake at a junction. So I don’t consider that Advantage treated Mr G unfairly by taking the view that a court would find him partly at fault for the accident. And I don’t find it fair and reasonable to direct Advantage to do any more in response to this complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t direct Advantage Insurance Company Limited to do any more in response to this complaint. 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. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --