Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6195866

The complaint Mrs R is complaining about Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited (LV) decision to accept liability following an accident she was involved in, under her motor insurance policy. Reference to LV and its agents. What happened On 20 September 2025 Mrs R’s vehicle was involved in an accident. On 10 October 2025 LV notified Mrs R that a third-party had made a claim for the damage to their vehicle. Mrs R said she believed there was no collision as there was no damage to her vehicle. The third-party insurer provided photographs and a video. Mrs R maintained she wasn’t at fault for the collision. However, after considering the evidence, LV decided Mrs R was at fault for the accident. LV referred to the position of Mrs R’s car in the road, before she had moved it in the video provided by the third-party driver. And said on balance the damage to the third-party vehicle was more likely to have been caused by the collision. Mrs R didn’t agree with LV’s response and bought her complaint to us. Our investigator didn't uphold the complaint. They were satisfied LV had considered everything and came to a fair conclusion when determining liability of the claim. Mrs R didn't agree with the investigator and so her complaint has been passed to me to make a final decision. 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’m not upholding it. Whilst I’ve not commented on every piece of evidence or argument raised, I have considered everything presented to me. My decision focusses on what I believe are the key points of the complaint. Mrs R doesn’t think it’s fair for her to be liable for the claim, she maintains there was no collision and no damage to her vehicle. I acknowledge what Mrs R has said about the circumstances of the accident - that she wasn’t at fault for the accident. I don’t doubt the strength of her feeling on this issue. But it isn’t our role to decide who was responsible for causing the accident. This is the role of the courts. Instead, our role in complaints of this nature is to investigate how the insurer made the decision to settle the claim. Did it act fairly and reasonably and in line with the terms and conditions of the policy?

-- 1 of 2 --

Mrs R’s policy allows LV to take over, defend, or settle any claim under the policy. This is a common term in motor insurance policies, and I do not find it unusual. However, we expect an insurer to reasonably investigate a claim and consider the evidence available before making its decision on liability. I’ve taken into account Mrs R’s comments – in particular, that she says there was no damage to her vehicle. Looking at the evidence available when considering LV’s handling of the incident, it does indicate its consideration of the circumstances of the accident, including Mrs R’s version of what happened. This includes the images provided by Mrs R, her testimony, a video and photographs from the third-party showing the positions of both vehicles in the road and damage to the third-party’s vehicle after the incident. And while Mrs R has said there was no collision, LV said there weren’t any independent witness evidence about the accident when it happened, or dashcam or CCTV footage showing the accident as it happened. I’m satisfied LV has considered all the circumstances before reaching a conclusion, and I can’t say it has acted unfairly in reaching the decision it has made. It has referred to the position of Mrs R’s vehicle prior to her moving it in the video. While Mrs R has said there was no collision, LV set out that there isn’t any independent evidence to prove this was the case. And I don’t think it was unreasonable for it to have concluded as such. I recognise Mrs R feels LV has been unfair and doesn’t agree it should have settled on liability as it did, she says she didn’t receive any contact from LV requesting any information from her. But I can see it wrote to Mrs R on 10 October 2025 informing her of the accident and giving her five days to respond. The claim notes indicate that Mrs R’s husband spoke to the claim handler on her behalf the following day. LV accepted liability after it considered Mrs R’s evidence, the photographs and video from the third-party. Overall, I’m satisfied LV has taken everything Mrs R has provided into account before it reached the decision it did. So I don't think it's acted unfairly in the way it handled Mrs R’s claim. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs R to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Lorraine Ball Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --