DRN-6310056

The complaint Mr C complains about how Ageas Insurance Limited settled a claim made on his commercial motor insurance policy. Reference to Ageas includes its agents. What happened Mr C held a commercial motor insurance policy with Ageas. When he was involved in an accident he made Ageas aware. When the policy renewed, Mr C was shocked to find the price of the policy had increased significantly. He subsequently found this was because Ageas had settled the third party’s claim (related to the accident noted above) as a “fault” claim. This in turn meant Mr C lost his no claims discount (NCD). Mr C complained about this, he said he didn’t think he was at fault for the accident. He said although he reversed into the other car, it was too close to him, with no lights on. He also thought the driver of that car was under the influence and said they left the scene. He also complained that he wasn’t told the claim was settled and only found out when the policy renewed. Ageas maintained its decision to settle the third party’s claim was fair and in line with the terms of Mr C’s policy. It did however acknowledge the communication around the claim was poor and said it should have informed Mr C of its decision earlier. It offered Mr C £300 compensation. Mr C remained unhappy with Ageas’ decision and brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our Investigator didn’t think Mr C’s complaint should be upheld. She thought Ageas’ claim decision was reasonable based on the evidence available. She too agreed that Ageas should have communicated that decision better. But she thought its offer of £300 compensation was reasonable. Mr C disagreed and asked for an Ombudsman’s decision. So, the case has come to me. 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, like our Investigator, I’m not upholding it. I’ll explain why. Firstly, I’ll not be addressing every argument of bit of evidence received. Instead, in line with our role as an informal service, I’ll focus on what I consider key. Secondly, it’s not my role, or the role of anyone at this service to determine who was at fault,

-- 1 of 2 --

or to blame for the accident. That’s a decision best left for the courts. What I have to decide is, was Ageas able to make the decision it did, and did it make that decision reasonably. So I need to consider what investigation it undertook and be satisfied that its decision was reasonable, based on that evidence. Like most motor policies, Mr C’s policy with Ageas says that Ageas can “defend or settle any claim”. This means the final say on how any claim will be settled lies with Ageas, not Mr C. So naturally, at times it might make decisions he doesn’t agree with. To exercise this term fairly, Ageas needs to carry out an appropriate investigation into what happened and base its decision on the evidence it collates. Here, Ageas settled the claim with Mr C being responsible (at fault) for the accident because he reversed into the car behind him. It’s said because he was completing the manoeuvre, he had the duty of care not to hit the other driver. I’m satisfied that’s reasonable, and I’ve seen that Ageas thought it would have little prospect of successfully defending the claim were it to go to court. So, on that basis, I find its decision to settle the third party’s claim as a fault claim on Mr C’s policy reasonable. I understand Mr C had witnesses, but they weren’t deemed independent (on account of them being in his car) which I think is reasonable. And in any event, they didn’t support that Mr C wasn’t at fault for the accident. Because they didn’t show anything to suggest Mr C did not have the greater duty of care owing to him carrying out the manoeuvre. I’ve also considered what Mr C said about the third party being too close, not having lights on and potentially being under the influence and leaving the scene. But none of that changes that as the party reversing, he had the duty of care not to hit the third party’s vehicle. It follows then that I find it reasonable his renewal was rated on this claim being a fault claim. But, Mr C should have been told how the claim was settled when it was settled. I think he’d still have been unhappy with that then. But finding out at renewal should not have been the way Mr C found out. That will have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. For that, Ageas offered £300. I’m satisfied that’s a reasonable amount. So if it’s not already paid this, it should do so. My final decision For the reasons set out above. I’m not requiring Ageas to do more than pay the £300 it’s offered to do already. But if Ageas Insurance Limited hasn’t paid the £300 compensation it offered, it should now do so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Joe Thornley Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --