U K Insurance Limited · DRN-6178041

The complaint Miss F has complained about U K Insurance Limited (UKI) trading as Green Flag’s service when she claimed on her European Breakdown policy. Many of the actions Miss F complained about were taken by UKI’s partners abroad. However, as Miss F’s contract is with UKI and it underwrites the policy, it remains responsible for the actions of its European partners; so I will only refer to UKI within this decision. What happened I have read UKI's full file including its claims handling notes and Miss F’s summary of her diary entries. However, I don't intend to refer to everything that happened. Instead I will only provide a brief outline of the key events. Miss F was travelling in her campervan (the van) abroad with her two dogs. She broke down and asked UKI for help. However, despite offering Miss F a hotel for the night, it didn't provide any assistance on the first day of her breakdown (a Friday). It was Sunday before UKI towed Miss F's van to a depot and put her up in a hotel. At Miss F’s suggestion UKI eventually took her van to a garage in a city around 260 km away. After the repairs were completed, the van broke down again and the garage was unable to fix it. Miss F wanted UKI to move her van back to the UK. She was unhappy with its proposals and said she would dispose of UKI’s assistance and drive the van home herself. In response to Miss F’s complaint UKI acknowledged it hadn’t got everything right. By way of redress it sent her a cheque for compensation of £350. Miss F brought her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. One of our Investigators looked into it. He thought UKI had done enough to put things right. Miss F didn't agree so, as the complaint remains unresolved, it's been passed to me to determine. 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. In bringing this complaint and responding to our Investigator’s assessment of it Miss F has made a number of points. I've considered everything on file. But in this decision I don't intend to address each and every issue raised. Instead I will focus on what I see as being the key points at the heart of Miss F’s complaint and the reasons for my decision. There's no doubt that UKI’s response to Miss F’s breakdown was very poor at the outset. It initially told her that a recovery agent should be with her within 90 minutes. But that just didn't happen. It seems that there was an issue with the location of Miss F’s van and the local recovery agents didn't think they could cross a nearby bridge (presumably because of the dimensions or weight of its tow truck). And UKI’s communication with Miss F was very poor, as it failed to keep her informed of what was happening. It did offer to tow her van to a depot and find her a hotel but on that occasion Miss F said she’d rather stay in her van and have a recovery agent attend to things the next day.

-- 1 of 3 --

The problems persisted the next day. UKI again told her it could tow her to a depot but couldn't arrange repairs as the local garages were closed for the weekend. It also appeared to struggle to find a hotel because of Miss F’s two dogs. It did arrange a recovery truck late that night but the recovery agent was unable to locate Miss F. UKI did ring her but she’d been asleep meaning, UKI’s call woke her and, according to her own diary entry, she was upset and couldn’t speak to it. The next day Ms F asked UKI to take her van to a specific repairer in a city around 260 km away. UKI said it would need to check with the garage that it could repair her van. In the meantime it said it could take her van to a depot and arrange a hotel nearby. Miss F agreed to that although UKI told her she would have to pay the hotel supplement for her dogs herself, which Miss F wasn’t happy with. So it appears it was two full days before UKI achieved any real progress. But it isn't responsible for all the problems Miss F encountered. It wasn't UKI’s fault that the van broke down in the first place. And it did offer to arrange a hotel initially but Miss F said she’d prefer to stay in her van. It seems that Miss F thought a recovery agent might be able to fix her van at the roadside. But Miss F’s policy certainly doesn't make any guarantees that UKI will achieve that result and it’s apparent that wasn’t possible for Miss F’s van. Matters were also complicated both by the location of her van and also because she was travelling with dogs. Miss F’s policy only covers her and her van, it doesn’t cover pets. So not only did this make accommodation more difficult to find it also came with extra costs that weren’t covered by her policy. So Miss F needed to cover these herself. I understand she wasn't happy with that but given that UKI was acting in line with the policy terms, I don't think it did anything wrong in not covering the extra costs for her dogs. Miss F also said that UKI essentially abandoned her after it towed her van to the repairing garage because it left her by the roadside. But that's not accurate. UKI did arrange accommodation for her but Miss F wasn’t happy with it, especially as the hotel insisted that she pay her supplement for her dogs in cash, which she didn't have. But UKI isn't responsible for the hotel’s charging practices and it did arrange accommodation for Miss F. I’m satisfied it was her choice not to accept that accommodation. After the garage attempted repair the van broke down again. But UKI is not responsible for the actions or the costs of the garage. If her van can’t be mended at the roadside then her policy only covers her for a tow to a garage. It doesn't cover the costs of repairs and UKI isn't responsible for the quality of any work completed by the garage, that’s a private arrangement between Miss F and the garage. So it wasn't UKI’s fault that the garage couldn’t repair the van and it broke down again. After that UKI did discuss options for Miss F to get home. Miss F seems to think UKI should have been able to sort that out within a day. But repatriating a vehicle isn't generally as straightforward as that, as it may require a relay of recovery operators and a ferry crossing with a collection by another recovery agent in the UK. So I don't think UKI did anything wrong in telling Miss F that it wouldn’t be able to arrange that immediately. It did discuss methods of returning Miss F and her dogs home including hiring a car and her taking a ferry or alternatively returning home via train. But, for various reasons, including the ferry company’s rules about transporting dogs, Miss F wasn’t happy with those proposals. But again UKI is not responsible for the ferry operator’s policies concerning dogs. And UKI was clearly trying to come up with workable solutions to help Miss F get home. Miss F eventually dispensed with UKI’s services and, after taking advice from a mechanic friend, drove the van home herself. That was entirely her choice but I don't think it was something that UKI forced her into.

-- 2 of 3 --

UKI did recognise that, initially at least, it had let Miss F down and it sent her a cheque for £350 by way of compensation. Miss F said that isn't enough as it doesn't cover her out of pocket expenses for things including the hotel charges for her dogs, the repairs, food costs etc. Those are all things that her policy did not cover and which UKI is not responsible for. Instead the compensation was intended to provide redress for the distress and inconvenience Miss F suffered as a result of its omissions and errors such as its delays and poor communication. I'm aware Miss F doesn't think £350 goes far enough but I think it’s a reasonable sum in the circumstances. That’s because that sum is in line with awards we make in other cases of similar seriousness where a business’s mistakes have a serious short term impact causing considerable distress, upset, worry and significant inconvenience requiring a lot of extra effort to sort out. So, as I think UKI’s compensation award is fair and reasonable, I'm not going to instruct it to pay any additional amounts. My final decision For the reasons set out above I do not require UKI to take any further action. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss F to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Joe Scott Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --