Inter Partner Assistance SA · DRN-6015204

The complaint Miss C complains that Inter Partner Assistance SA (IPA) unfairly handled her claim under a roadside assistance policy. Reference to IPA includes actions taken by its agents. What happened The circumstances of this case are known to both parties, but in summary Miss C has a roadside assistance policy underwritten by IPA. In August 2025, Miss C experienced a breakdown and called IPA to claim for roadside assistance. Miss C said IPA failed to respond to the claim fairly, and this led to her being abandoned on the side of the road for approximately six hours. Due to the worry and upset Miss C felt at being left alone on the side of the road late at night, Miss C said she had no choice but to abandon her car, and arrange to be collected by her partner, who was two hours away. Unhappy with its handling of her claim, Miss C complained to IPA. IPA upheld the complaint and offered Miss C £250 in recognition of the service she experienced as it identified her claim hadn’t been handled fairly. As Miss C remained unhappy, she referred her complaint to this Service. Our Investigator upheld the complaint. They said they found Miss C’s testimony to be persuasive, and they didn’t agree that £250 fairly reflected IPA’s service failings. They recommended IPA increase its compensation to £750 in total. Miss C agreed with the recommendation, however IPA didn’t and asked for an Ombudsman to make a final decision. 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 respond to every point or piece of evidence. But I’ve focused on the issues I consider to be key to the outcome of the case. This isn’t meant as a discourtesy but reflects the informal nature of this Service – and the rules this Service are expected to adhere to enable me to do this. Having considered all available evidence, I am upholding this complaint. I’ll explain why. Relevant regulatory rules say firms must handle claims promptly, and fairly. So, I must decide whether IPA handled Miss C’s claim fairly and reasonably taking into account the individual circumstances of this case.

-- 1 of 3 --

It isn’t in dispute that IPA failed to handle Miss C’s claim fairly. Miss C originally raised her claim at approximately 3.00pm, but as she didn’t have the right level of cover, agreed to pay £300 which enhanced her cover and enabled her to claim. Shortly before 4.00pm, IPA agreed to send out assistance and informed Miss C this would take between 60 – 90 minutes. However, due to availability, IPA was unable to source a recovery agent. This led to Miss C feeling as though she had no choice but to abandon her car at around 8.00pm. During the claim, IPA doesn’t appear to have provided Miss C with any meaningful update about the progress of her claim. I think IPA should have done more to keep Miss C informed of its progress, even if this was to simply inform her that it hadn’t been able to locate an appropriate recovery agent. IPA’s lack of updates meant Miss C couldn’t make informed decisions about her safety or the security of her car. The claims file shows that IPA’s agent didn’t attend the breakdown until the following day – at which point Miss C’s car couldn’t be located. It later transpired that Miss C’s car had been recovered by National Highways, stored at a facility and required a fee to be released. Miss C has said that the impact of the delays and failure to attend left her feeling scared, upset, and extremely vulnerable. Miss C said she had no access to a toilet and water during this time and was extremely worried about her safety given she was on the side of a busy motorway, and on her own. She became increasingly worried and frightened as the delays increased which led to a family member having to chase IPA on her behalf due to the impact of her being left in a vulnerable state. Miss C has also explained that this occurred at a time when she was dealing with the passing of a family member. In addition to this, Miss C had the added worry of not knowing where her car was and was led to believe it had been stolen. And as National Highways collected her car due to it being left on the roadside and in an unsafe place, Miss C was liable for additional costs in getting her car released – which could have been mitigated had IPA progressed the claim more promptly. It appears IPA has refunded Miss C the costs in releasing her car and I agree this is reasonable in the circumstances. I’m satisfied IPA didn’t move the claim forward promptly or keep Miss C informed. This meant she was left alone on the side of a busy motorway for several hours without clear information about what was happening. I appreciate how frightening and distressing that would have been in the circumstances. I accept that this was in part due to the nature of breaking down on the side of a motorway, however I’m persuaded IPA’s actions exacerbated what was an incredibly worrying and upsetting time for Miss C. It follows that I don’t think £250 fairly and reasonably reflects the impact of IPA’s actions. Our Investigator has recommended that IPA increase its compensatory offer to £750. I don’t find this to be unreasonable in the circumstances – given the prolonged delay, lack of communication, and the significant distress Miss C described – much of which I find credible and consistent with the evidence. This amount is consistent with our award bands where a firm’s actions have caused considerable distress, upset and worry and can be appropriate where a mistake has a serious short-term impact. And so, I think £750 is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of this particular complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and direct Inter Partner Assistance SA to pay Miss C £750 in total in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it caused. If IPA has already paid any previously offered compensation, it should pay the difference to Miss C.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss C to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Oliver Collins Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --