Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-6264387

The complaint Miss L has complained about Aviva Insurance Limited. She isn’t happy about the way it declared her car a total loss following a claim under her motor insurance policy. Any reference to Aviva includes any agents that it is responsible for unless specified. What happened Miss L made a claim under her motor insurance policy with Aviva after a non-fault accident and advanced a complaint previously with this Service as it declared her car a total loss when she wanted her car repaired. It offered Miss L the market value of her car (about £2,320) or to pay a cash-in-lieu (CIL) payment. Her complaint wasn’t upheld but Miss L has since provided further evidence suggesting her car could have been repaired for about £1617. And so, she thought her car should have been repaired. When Aviva looked into this for Miss L it explained that as the cost to repair her car would have been about 70% of the value of her car it maintained that it had acted fairly in writing the car off. But as Miss L didn’t agree and said that it didn’t fully assess the car before making its decision, she complained to this Service. Our Investigator looked into things for Miss L, but she didn’t uphold her complaint. This was because Aviva had acted in line generally with the industry here in deciding that the cost to repair (69.7% of the value of Miss L’s car) meant that it was reasonable to write Miss L’s car off. As Miss L didn’t agree the matter has been referred to me for review. 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, I can understand why Miss L wanted her car repaired - but I will not go over the finer detail of this as this has been considered separately. I’ll simply focus on whether Aviva acted fairly here in deciding to maintain its position that it had acted fairly when it decided to write off her car when Miss L presented the further evidence in relation to repair costs. And generally I think it has, I’ll explain why. I know Miss L highlights that there isn’t anything documented as to when it is reasonable to write off her car and the percentages involved in the policy, but I wouldn’t expect there to be this level of detail in the policy documentation. And I must highlight that consumers often want their car written off as opposed to repaired in circumstances like these as they question the level of damage caused and the possibility that the car isn’t repaired to the required standard given the level of rectification repairs which is understandable. In this instance Miss L wanted her car repaired no matter what the cost initially and I understand that some of her early repair estimates were more than the repair quote she asked Aviva to consider here. There is always a strong possibility that repair costs will increase so insurers don’t want to run the risk of spiralling costs over and above the write off value. And given Miss L had repair quotes for more and Aviva’s engineers’ initial assessment suggested the car was most likely a write off then I think it acted fairly here. And

-- 1 of 2 --

as Miss L has highlighted her repair quotation is an estimate and there is every possibility that the actual repairs will cost more in any event. I know Miss L has highlighted that Aviva’s engineer hasn’t outlined specific costs to repair but engineers have a lot of experience in repairing cars and are experts in the area, so a desk top assessment was suitable in this instance, especially as access to the car wasn’t easy at the time. And given Miss L’s original repair quotation of around £2,343 from a main dealer was equal to the total value of her car and there is always the possibility of increasing costs when repairing a vehicle, I can’t see that Aviva has acted unfairly here. Plus, Miss L hasn’t been prejudiced here in any event. I say this as Miss L was offered the full market value of her car and a CIL payment if she wanted to retain the car and have it repaired herself. So, Miss L was free to keep her car and have it repaired herself if she wanted so I don’t think I can say Aviva acted unreasonably here. Given all of this, and the likelihood of repair costs increasing given Miss L’s earlier repair quotation, I don’t think that Aviva have acted unfairly here in deciding her car was, on balance, a write off. My final decision It follows for the reasons given above that I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss L to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Colin Keegan Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --