DRN-6244287

The complaint Ms M is unhappy with the service provided by Ageas Insurance Limited (Ageas) following a claim made on her car insurance policy. What happened The background to Ms M’s claim is well-known to both parties. So, I haven’t repeated it in detail here. To summarise Ms M contacted Ageas to make a claim following an incident involving her car. Since making her claim, Ms M has made several complaints to Ageas. Ageas has issued two final response letters in September 2025 (offering £4,395 in settlement of Ms M’s claim as the valuation for her car), and December 2025 (offering £600 compensation for incorrectly disposing of the salvage). During our investigation, Ageas offered a further £300 in recognition of its poor claim handling overall. Ms M rejected Ageas’s findings, offers of compensation and valuation for her car, and brought her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service for investigation. The Investigator said the settlement offer for Ms M’s car was in line with our guidelines for complaints involving vehicle valuation. The Investigator also said the compensation for its incorrect disposal of the salvage was in line with our approach. Lastly the Investigator said the compensation offer of £300 should be increased to £450 in recognition of what had happened, and the impact on Ms M. Ms M didn’t accept the Investigator’s findings. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved it has been passed to me for 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. I thank Ms M for taking the time to explain everything that has happened when making her claim through her policy with Ageas. I understand it has been a stressful time for Ms M, and this information cannot be easy to share. I’d like to reassure the parties that although I’ve only summarised the background to this complaint, so not everything that has happened or been argued is set out above, I’ve read and considered everything that has been provided. Valuation I’ve looked at the valuation guides that we would usually refer to when dealing with complaints about market valuation. These guides are based on extensive nationwide research of likely selling prices. They use advertised prices and auction prices to work out what likely selling prices would’ve been. We expect insurers to use valuation guides when valuing a vehicle for claims purposes. When considering complaints about vehicle valuation, we look to see whether the insurer has shown its valuation is fair. To do this we use four recognised valuation guides. Where

-- 1 of 3 --

we find a material difference between the guides, we’d expect a business to support why the valuation it has offered is a fair one. In this case, I’ve seen that three of the valuation guides returned a value for Ms M’s car. Of the three values returned, the highest valuation returned was £4,277 around the date of loss. This value is lower that Ageas’s offer of £4,395. This suggests Ageas’s offer is fair. It’s also largely on par with the highest valuation returned from the valuation guides, further supporting Ageas’s valuation being a reasonable one. Ms M has described in detail the rare and specific features of her car which made it more desirable. Ms M says these features directly impacted its value, and haven’t been considered by Ageas when offering her a valuation for her car. I’ve carefully considered Ms M’s comments alongside the evidence provided, including the invoices supporting work carried on Ms M’s car. It’s not disputed that the features on Ms M’s car were costly at the time of purchase, and added to the driving experience. However, most of the work billed for on the invoices was done in order to make necessary repairs to keep the car in good order. And money spent on maintenance/repairs is not regarded as increasing the value of the vehicle. Those are necessary expenses to keep the car in good condition and therefore maintain its value. I note Ms M has provided numerous adverts, asserting their relevance in increasing the valuation placed on her car. I wish to reassure Ms M that I’ve carefully considered the adverts and her points. I don’t propose to go over the detail of each advert and the similarities and differences between Ms M’s car and the adverts. Having reviewed everything, I am satisfied that there are material differences in things like the age, mileage, and engine size of Ms M’s car compared to the adverts. These factors are all likely to have an impact on the valuation of a car. So, I don’t think the evidence provided by Ms M is persuasive enough for me to say that Ageas should increase its offer. I recognise Ms M’s strength in feelings on the matter. But my role here is to consider whether Ageas have offered Ms M a fair value for her car. And based on the reasons I’ve mentioned above, I think it has. I haven’t seen any evidence that persuades me the valuation guides our service uses to assess whether a fair value has been reached, shouldn’t be used here. And given that Ageas’s offer of £4,395 is more than the highest value provided by the guides, I’m satisfied Ageas has offered Ms M a fair market value. Salvage Ageas accepts it incorrectly disposed of the salvage. Because of this Ms M has now been deprived of the opportunity to buy back the salvage. I can see why she is frustrated by what has happened. Ageas accepts its poor claim handling in this respect, and offered Ms M £600 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to Ms M. I’ve considered our award bands alongside the missed opportunity, and impact on Ms M. I’m also mindful of the cost of repairs, which significantly outweighed the valuation placed on Ms M’s car. I’m persuaded this affects the extent to which Ms M has been impacted by the option to buy the salvage no longer being open to her. I’ve also considered Ms M’s section 75 claim which could’ve benefitted from a physical inspection of the car; although there remains uncertainty about the extent to which this would’ve helped the claim. All things considered, I’m persuaded compensation of £600 fairly recognises the impact on Ms M by what went wrong with the handling of the claim, and missed opportunity. This

-- 2 of 3 --

amount is broadly in in line with what we would direct in similar circumstances. So, I won’t be directing Ageas to pay anything more for this service failing. Claim handling It’s not disputed that Ageas could’ve done more to provide Ms M with a better level of customer service. Ms M had raised concerns about the valuation on her car, and the lack of adaptive communication from Ageas. Despite this, Ageas’s claim handling continued to be poor with the incorrect disposal of Ms M’s car without her consent. I’m persuaded this would’ve caused Ms M upset and stress at a time that she was already feeling disappointed with the poor handling of her claim. I’ve considered what Ms M has explained about the lack of clear and meaningful communication with her, and what this meant for health and well-being. Thinking about our approach to compensation, and what has happened on this claim, I think £450 compensation reasonably recognises the impact on Ms M caused by Ageas’s poor handling of the claim. This amount recognises Ageas could’ve done more to provide Ms M with clear updates, and respond to her communications more efficiently than it did. It also recognises that although the claim handling was poor in parts, the outcome of the valuation complaint itself, remains unchanged. Putting things right Ageas Insurance Limited is directed to pay Ms M £450 for distress and inconvenience. If any of this compensation has already been paid, Ageas is directed to pay the outstanding amount only. My final decision For the reasons given above, I uphold this complaint. Ageas Insurance Limited is directed to follow my directions for putting things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms M to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Neeta Karelia Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --