DRN-6245878

The complaint Mr M complains about the way Haven Insurance Company Limited handled a claim he made on his taxi policy for damage to his taxi. What happened Mr M was involved in an accident whilst driving his vehicle in September 2025. He made a claim on his taxi policy, which he’d applied for as the owner of the vehicle. Haven didn’t think it was economical to repair the vehicle, as such, in October 2025, it proposed to settle the claim for the market value of the vehicle. Mr M wasn’t happy with that, he asked for cash in lieu of the repair costs, which Haven didn’t agree to. Mr M complained and Haven issued a final response letter, maintaining its position, on 5 December 2025. It did however offer £150 compensation for some service issues. Shortly after, Haven was contacted by a third party, who said it was the owner of the vehicle, not Mr M. It said it had repossessed the vehicle on 3 December 2025 and that any settlement would need to be paid to it. Mr M referred his complaint to this Service. He said as a result of Haven’s poor handling of matters, he’d suffered loss of earnings, which had resulted in the repossession of the taxi. He also said he’d incurred charges and penalties from the owner of the vehicle which should also be covered by Haven. Our Investigator thought Haven had unfairly said the vehicle was a total loss, and it should have sought to repair the vehicle. But ultimately, he didn’t recommend Haven pay any compensation to Mr M as a result of his lost earnings. He wasn’t satisfied Haven’s handling of matters was the reason that the vehicle was repossessed. He recommended Haven pay a further £500 compensation for the poor customer service it provided. Haven agreed to the increased level of compensation, but it didn’t agree it had acted unreasonably in declaring the vehicle a total loss. Mr M didn’t accept the outcome of our Investigator. He said had Haven agreed to repair the vehicle within a reasonable period of time; he’d have been able to keep working and meet the payments on his lease agreement. He also said he had a further loss of earnings claim to make, since his private hire taxi license expired in February 2026, but he hadn’t been able to renew it because he didn’t have a vehicle. He said all of this had been caused by Haven’s delay in settling the claim. After our Investigator issued his initial view, Haven then settled the claim for repairs carried out by the owner of the vehicle. Mr M said because Haven had delayed reimbursing the owner of the vehicle for the repairs, it had had a knock-on impact to him, with the owner of the vehicle not allowing him to use the vehicle and applying fees and charges. Our Investigator told both parties that he’d consider those events; having done so, he didn’t think Haven had unfairly delayed settlement of the repair costs with the owner. As such, he didn’t recommend Haven take any further action. As Mr M doesn’t agree with that outcome, the matter has come to me to decide.

-- 1 of 3 --

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. Whilst Mr M has provided a detailed timeline of events, as well as detailed submissions on the impact of this claim, in keeping with the informal nature of this Service, the background set out above and the findings below will be brief and focussed to the main reason for reaching the decision that I have. Having reviewed the timeline of events, I’m not going to require Haven to meet Mr M’s claimed for losses. I’ll explain why. Haven first recorded the incident on 19 September 2025, and its notes say Mr M confirmed he wanted to make a claim on the policy on 22 September. On 22 October, it said the vehicle wouldn’t be repaired and the claim would be settled as a total loss. I’m persuaded Haven assessed the vehicle and made an offer in a reasonable amount of time, as such I don’t consider it caused any delay at this stage. I know Mr M disagreed with that decision to deem the car a total loss, but I’m not going to make a finding here as to whether that was a reasonable position for Haven to take at the time, because I’m not persuaded that doing so would result in a different outcome. I say this because, even if Haven agreed to carry out repairs at the end of October 2022, those repairs would still need to be completed. Allowing a few weeks for those repairs to be done, means Mr M wouldn’t have been likely to have his vehicle back before mid-November. I’m not persuaded that would have been long enough, to restart his work and make any overdue payments before the vehicle was repossessed at the start of December 2025. I say this also noting that some of the charges and late payment fees appear to have pre-dated the incident. As such, the third party’s decision to repossess doesn’t appear to be linked to any issue Haven might have caused during the claim, with the owner of the vehicle not knowing about it being damaged until it took possession of it. As such, I’m not satisfied that Mr M’s position would have been significantly altered, even if Haven had agreed, in October 2022, to repair the vehicle. Mr M’s policy entitled him to a hire car for 21 days. So I consider there would always have been a period of time he’d have been without his vehicle, given the extent of the damage, even if Haven had progressed matters as he’d have liked and repaired it. But it was still Mr M’s responsibility to meet any payments due on the vehicle during that time. As such, I don’t find any decision of Haven’s as to the future of the vehicle to be the most likely cause of the vehicle’s repossession. This means I’m not going to require Haven to meet Mr M’s claim for loss of earnings, or any charges the vehicle owner applied after the vehicle was repossessed. I’m also not going to require Haven to pay compensation to Mr M for the time it took to settle the repair costs with the owner of the vehicle. I can’t see that Haven unreasonably delayed making this payment to the owner; it is entitled to request evidence, in the form of an invoice, before agreeing payment. And even if Haven could have settled things sooner, the owner of the vehicle had already had it repaired, and seemingly, had re-leased the vehicle to another party. Any dispute Mr M has about charges that the owner of the vehicle applied, or its refusal to allow him to continue to use the vehicle, are a matter between Mr M and the vehicle owner. I realise this has been a difficult time for Mr M, and like our Investigator, I think Haven could have communicated better with Mr M at the early point in the claim. Not doing so did cause him some unnecessary distress and inconvenience. But Haven’s agreed to pay £500 (including the £150 it had previously offered) and I’m satisfied that is fair compensation for the issues it caused. As such, Haven will need to pay this amount to resolve the complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and I direct Haven Insurance Company Limited to pay Mr M £500 (including £150 already offered) compensation, less any amount already paid. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Michelle Henderson Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --