Financial & Legal Insurance Company Ltd · DRN-6127745

The complaint Mrs W complains that Financial & Legal Insurance Company Ltd (F&L) unfairly handled a claim on her breakdown assistance insurance policy. What happened Mrs W has a breakdown assistance policy underwritten by F&L. In October 2025, Mrs W experienced a flat tyre while travelling with her five children on a motorway and so contacted F&L to request assistance. Upon arrival, F&L’s agent said it was unable to change the tyre as its 21 mm socket and the socket stored in Mrs W’s car didn’t fit the locking wheel nuts. It informed Mrs W that she would need to arrange the recovery of her car – and this would be a paid service as it only covered the initial call-out. Unhappy with its handling of the claim, Mrs W complained. F&L didn’t uphold the complaint. It said that it was satisfied its agent had acted fairly and in line with the terms of its policy. As Mrs W remained unhappy, she referred her complaint to this Service. Our Investigator upheld the complaint. While they acknowledged F&L had acted fairly with respect to the roadside assistance, it didn’t think F&L had provided reasonable support and so recommended it pay £200 in recognition of the trouble and upset caused. F&L agreed with our Investigator, however, Mrs W didn’t and asked for an Ombudsman to make a final decision. In summary, she said F&L’s agent could have completed the roadside assistance as her husband later attended and used the tools available in the car to change the tyre. Mrs W also said F&L left her in a vulnerable position as she was left with no recovery, no provision for onward travel was made, and no follow-up contact was made to ensure she was safe. So, the case has been passed 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. I know I’ve summarised the circumstances of this case in less detail than presented. But I want to assure both parties that I’ve carefully considered all the information provided. I may not comment on each point raised – and this isn’t intended as a discourtesy. But my decision will focus on the issues I consider to be key to this complaint. My role requires me to determine if F&L handled Mrs W’s claim fairly. In doing so, I have taken into account the relevant laws, regulatory rules, industry best practice, as well as what I consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Having considered the available evidence, I uphold this complaint. I’ll explain why.

-- 1 of 3 --

The starting point with any insurance claim is the policy terms and conditions as this sets out the basis of the agreement between the insurer and the policyholder. Under the terms of this policy, Mrs W can request roadside assistance if she has broken down more than one mile from her home address, and F&L will arrange for a recovery operator to either attend the scene of the breakdown and where possible carry out a temporary repair, or, take the car to the nearest suitable garage. It isn’t in dispute that Mrs W had a valid request for assistance. So, I won’t comment on its overall validity. Instead, Mrs W is unhappy about the way F&L’s recovery operator supported her on site. As I am sure both parties can appreciate, I wasn’t present at the time of assistance. So, there is simply no way for me to say for sure what happened. It’s also not for me to determine the nature of a breakdown, or the assistance required to enable Mrs W to have continued her journey. So, I have gone on to consider whether F&L acted fairly, based on the terms of her policy. The recovery operator recorded that they were unable to change Mrs W’s tyre as the socket it had on site, as well as the one in the car, didn’t fit the locking wheel nuts. Mrs W disputes this and has said that her husband, who did approximately a 100-mile round trip to assist her following F&L’s attempt, was able to change the tyre with the tools in Mrs W’s car. While I don’t doubt Mrs W’s account, F&L’s recovery agent documented at the time that the tools available prevented them from being able to complete the tyre change. So, it wasn’t unreasonable for F&L to rely on its agent’s report. As I have explained above, I wasn’t present at the time assistance was provided, and the available evidence doesn’t allow me to say with certainty whether the tyre could have been changed using the tools available. For that reason, I don’t make a finding on this point. In any event, I find that the outcome of this complaint doesn’t turn on whether the tyre change was technically possible, but on how F&L responded once its agent said it couldn’t be completed. F&L has said that as incorrect information was provided when making a request for assistance, it was entitled to honour the original call-out, and any future recovery call-outs would be on a paid basis. I don’t agree. The term F&L has relied on applies to the Homestart section of the policy. I haven’t seen anything in the Roadside Assistance section which allows F&L to limit its obligations in the same way. I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable for F&L to rely on a term from a different section of the policy to restrict the support Mrs W was entitled to here. As such, once F&L’s agent said it couldn’t change the tyre at the roadside, the policy required F&L to take the next step in supporting Mrs W. This included arranging recovery to a suitable garage or clearly explaining the option of a mobile tyre fitter and covering the call‑out cost in line with the policy. I recognise Mrs W has explained that the situation caused her, her partner and children significant distress. I wholly appreciate the situation would have been upsetting and caused worry given the circumstances of the breakdown. However, Mrs W’s husband isn’t party to this complaint as he isn’t named on the policy. So, I can only take into account the impact of F&L’s actions on her. And it is important that I separate any upset she experienced as a natural consequence of breaking down on the side of a motorway, to that specifically caused by F&L’s actions. It’s clear from the calls that Mrs W had with F&L that she was left distressed and upset due to the nature of the breakdown. I’m satisfied that Mrs W’s distress was made worse by F&L’s failure to provide the support the policy promised. Being left without recovery, without a clear alternative, and without reassurance about the next steps understandably added to her worry in an already stressful situation.

-- 2 of 3 --

Mrs W has asked that F&L refund her the premiums she paid under the policy. However, I won’t be directing F&L to do this as while F&L has made an error here, it has still accepted the risk of Mrs W making a successful claim over the period of cover. But I agree compensation is warranted in recognition of the distress and inconvenience F&L caused in its handling of Mrs W’s claim. Our Investigator has recommended F&L pay £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. There is no exact science to awards for compensation. But taking into account the circumstances of the breakdown, the lack of practical support provided, and the distress caused as a result, I’m satisfied that £200 fairly reflects the impact of F&L’s failings. This is consistent with our award bands where a firm’s repeated small errors have caused some distress and inconvenience, and is consistent with the level of awards I make in similar cases. So, I won’t be directing F&L to make any awards beyond this. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and direct Financial & Legal Insurance Company Ltd to: • Pay Mrs W £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs W to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Oliver Collins Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --