DRN-6320182

The complaint Ms S has complained about the way AWP P&C S.A. handled a claim she made on her roadside assistance insurance policy. I’ve decided not to direct AWP to take any further action other than to pay the £350 compensation they offered – I’ve explained why below. Where I mention AWP below, it includes the actions of their agents. What happened Ms S was travelling on a UK motorway in April 2025 when her car had a flat tyre. She rang AWP to request assistance. AWP advised Ms S drive to a safe place, which she did. AWP first arranged for a hire car, but when Ms S made it clear it would be impractical to pick it up from that location, a taxi was arranged to take her home. Ms S’ car was recovered to a garage local to the breakdown, but then AWP had it delivered to a garage close to where Ms S lived. Ms S complained to AWP about her experience. She said driving her car with a flat tyre made her feel unsafe and caused additional damage to her car, and her onward travel was poorly arranged causing her to wait for extended periods. AWP acknowledged they didn’t handle the assistance well and offered £350 compensation. They also agreed to pay to have Ms S’ alloy repaired. Ms S thought £350 wasn’t enough to put things right, and that compensation of £800 would more accurately reflect the distress she was caused. Ms S referred her complaint to this Service. An Investigator looked into what happened and thought AWP didn’t act fairly, but that their offer to put things right was reasonable. Ms S disagreed, so the complaint has come to me to decide. 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. As ours is an informal service, I’m not going to comment on every point or piece of evidence Ms S and AWP sent us. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be key or central to the complaint. I confirm I have considered everything submitted by the parties. Ms S’ policy provides assistance in the event her car breaks down. It says in certain situations AWP will pay costs of taking Ms S’ car to the nearest authorised dealer of her make of car; organise and pay for her to return home; organise and pay for a replacement car for up to two days; and arrange for her car to be returned. Based on what Ms S told this Service, she broke down on a motorway around 7:40pm, having driven several hundred miles that day already – and she intended to drive around another 100 miles to her home. After some time waiting at the side of the road, AWP told Ms S to drive the car to a safer location. She waited until around midnight, when AWP arranged

-- 1 of 3 --

a taxi to take her home. AWP arranged to have Ms S’ car taken to a garage near where she broke down, then, later, had it delivered to a garage near where she lived. Although AWP could have arranged the taxi earlier than they did, they did organise for her to return home the same night as the breakdown. And after Ms S raised concerns about picking her car up from the garage it was first taken to, AWP agreed to have it returned to the area where she lived. AWP may have left Ms S in a worse position had she not insisted on a taxi home. And it may have also been unreasonable for AWP to expect Ms S to retrieve her car from the first garage it was taken to. But neither situation happened, and I’m satisfied AWP fulfilled their obligations under the policy. Claim handling and the impact on Miss M AWP haven’t disputed Ms S’ version of events; have acknowledged their service fell short of what would have been fair handling of the claim; and have offered £350 compensation for their failings. So, I don’t need to decide whether AWP have acted unfairly, but I have considered whether they’ve done enough to put things right. Ms S needed to call AWP multiple times before they agreed to arrange her a taxi. And AWP set times for when they would call Ms S back but failed to adhere to these. AWP tried to put impractical arrangements in place for getting Ms S home instead of arranging a taxi for her from the outset. And I think it’s likely AWP caused delays which meant Ms S returned home around a couple of hours later than if they had handled the claim promptly and fairly. I find that AWP caused further unnecessary inconvenience in arranging a place Ms S could not reasonably retrieve her car from – and it would have been possible for them to simply tell her they were returning it to a garage close to her home in the first instance. I was sorry to hear about Ms S having to miss a shift at work and the uncomfortable situation at her workplace that followed. The breakdown will have been particularly distressing considering she had been driving all day, and she likely was worried about her shift at work in the morning. But I have to take into account the incident itself likely caused some of Ms S’ distress and inconvenience, and I don’t hold AWP responsible for Ms S’ car breaking down in the first place or her not being able to attend work and any potential damaged reputation caused by it – as this was a natural consequence of having broken down and her car needing to be repaired. Ms S was concerned about driving with a flat tyre and felt unsafe doing so. I understand her concerns, but I also understand why AWP may have felt it was necessary to have the car driven to a safe place to be inspected and retrieved. Ms S’ alloy was damaged when she drove on the flat tyre, but AWP ultimately agreed to repair it, which I find reasonable. Summary It follows that I think AWP’s offer of £350 is an appropriate amount of compensation for the additional unnecessary distress and inconvenience they caused. AWP should pay this to Ms S if they haven’t done already. My final decision For the reasons above, I uphold this complaint and direct AWP P&C S.A. to pay Ms S £350 (less any amount they’ve already paid). I’m not directing them to do anything further.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms S to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Andrew Wakatsuki-Robinson Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --