Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6207178

The complaint Mr R complains that Aviva Insurance Limited has unfairly refused to rectify an issue with his windscreen after it was replaced following a claim on his motor insurance policy. The repairing company which replaced Mr R's windscreen operates under its own branding. But, as it was essentially acting as agents for Aviva in this instance, for simplicity, except where I think it’s appropriate to refer to it explicitly, I will only refer to Aviva within this decision. What happened In April 2025 Mr R made a claim on his policy to have his windscreen replaced. He asked that it be replaced with original, manufacturer produced, glass rather than generic material. That required him to pay an additional £339, on top of his excess, which he agreed to. There was some miscommunication causing a delay, which led Mr R to complain. Aviva replaced the windscreen on 14 April 2025. Mr R wasn’t initially happy with some bubbling and Aviva sorted out the issue. He then raised an issue with the internal camera. Aviva arranged an appointment to sort that out but Mr R cancelled it and didn’t reply to Aviva’s messages following up on it. In June 2025 Aviva responded to the complaint. To address the impact of its miscommunication it paid Mr R £25 compensation. In October 2025 Mr R contacted Aviva again as his windscreen had a chip in it. There was again confusion over the date of an appointment and the local branch couldn't repair the windscreen when Mr R arrived. Also, Mr R said he’d previously told Aviva about wind noise but it hadn't replied. Aviva said this was a new issue which he only raised after the second windscreen chip. It said he would have to make a new claim in respect of that. It offered Mr R £25 compensation for the impact of its mistake with the branch appointment and £5.67 as a contribution towards his wasted fuel costs. Mr R didn't think that was fair and brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. After he’d done so, Aviva reviewed its position. It said it would increase the compensation offered and pay an additional £250 plus £5.67 for fuel. However, it again said that Mr R had not raised the issue of the wind noise until after the new windscreen chip had occurred. It repeated that those issues would have to be dealt with as a new claim. That would require Mr R to again pay his excess and if the windscreen requires replacement, to pay the additional fee for the manufacturer's glass. Our Investigator thought Aviva’s response was reasonable in the circumstances. Mr R didn't agree. So, as the matter remains unresolved it’s been passed to me to determine. 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. In bringing his complaint and responding to our Investigator’s assessment of it Mr R's made a number of points. But in this decision I don't intend to address each and every matter

-- 1 of 3 --

raised. Instead I will focus on what I see as being the key issues at the heart of Mr R’s complaint and the reasons for my decision. The key point of Mr R’s complaint is that he believes the replacement windscreen has had a fault since shortly after it was fitted. He said his car experienced wind noise as a result. He told this Service that he’d raised the issue by completing an online ‘warranty’ form in June 2025 but he didn’t receive a response. He thinks that as the windscreen hasn’t operated efficiently it’s not fair for Aviva to say he will have to make another claim in order to sort the matter out. In contrast Aviva has no record of Mr R contacting it between April 2025 when he cancelled an appointment concerning the camera issue and October 2025 when he reported a new chip to the windscreen. To support his position Mr R produced screen shots which seem to show a ‘warranty’ issue being raised with Aviva. The screenshots are taken from a mobile device and appear to be timestamped by that device on 19 June. He also produced an email from July 2025 where the repairing company asked for photographs to support a windscreen claim. However, it’s since transpired that the July 2025 email referred to a claim made by Mr R’s sister, which Mr R was helping her with. I haven't been persuaded that the warranty screenshots Mr R produced demonstrate he’d raised the issue of the wind noise with Aviva before October 2025. There is no name, vehicle registration number, reference number or date on the material supplied. So, while it seems to show that someone raised a warranty issue at some time there's nothing to tie it to Mr R, his car or the earlier windscreen replacement. The only date comes from the mobile device’s time stamp, but I'm not convinced that’s accurate. I say the above as Aviva has trawled its system for the records of every warranty reported on 19 June 2025. There is nothing from Mr R on that day or any other day until October 2025. And as it has comprehensive records of other similar issues reported, it seems likely, on balance, that it would have a similar record from Mr R if such an issue had been reported. Further, it has no records of any system issues on that day which could explain why it hadn't received Mr R’s report of the wind noise issue. I further note that Mr R has been fairly quick to tell Aviva of problems with his windscreen or about its communication generally and I find it unlikely that if Aviva had failed to reply to the warranty issue in June 2025 he would have left it until October 2025 to follow up on this. So, I find that Aviva was unaware of any wind noise issue until after the windscreen received further damage in October 2025. As such I don't think Aviva needs to deal with this matter as a correction of its earlier repair; instead I think it’s fair that it told Mr R he will need to make a new claim if he wants the matter sorting out. Turning to the failures in Aviva's communications. It has acknowledged that it wasn’t always clear with Mr R. It has twice offered him £25 compensation to address the impact of that. It also offered Mr R £5.67 to cover the fuel he used by unnecessarily driving to the branch when the repairer wasn’t ready for him. However, since then Aviva has reviewed the compensation and offered a further £250 compensation plus £5.67 for fuel. I think that is fair compensation as that sum is in line with awards we make in cases when a business’s errors have caused some stress and frustration over a relatively short period, which is what I think happened here. So I’m not going to instruct Aviva to increase its compensation award. My final decision Assuming Mr R accepts my final decision, unless it has already done so, Aviva Insurance Limited should pay him £250 compensation for his distress and inconvenience plus £5.67 for fuel. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or

-- 2 of 3 --

reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Joe Scott Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --