RAC Insurance Limited · DRN-6225281

The complaint Mr W has complained about the poor service he received when he asked for assistance under the European section of his Roadside Assistance policy with RAC Insurance Limited. What happened In February 2025 Mr W travelled with his family to France for a holiday. Unfortunately, his car broke down and was recovered to a garage. On collecting his car from the garage following a battery replacement, Mr W broke down across the road after refuelling. He managed to return his car to the garage. After a series of attempted repairs, in June 2025 Mr W’s car was repatriated back to the UK where it was repaired around two weeks later. Mr W complained to RAC about the way his claim for assistance was handled. RAC upheld Mr W’s complaint in part and paid him £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Mr W remained unhappy and asked us to look at his complaint. One of our Investigators thought RAC should increase the compensation it paid by a further £200, bringing the total award to £400. He noted that Mr W was fortunately able to access another vehicle when they returned from the UK without his car. RAC accepted the Investigator’s recommendation and has paid Mr W the additional £200, which Mr W has received. Mr W remains unhappy with the fact that RAC treated the breakdown as one. Mr W believes RAC should have treated the breakdown as two separate breakdowns. Not all of Mr W’s costs were reimbursed by RAC as it said he had reached the policy limit for a breakdown of £2,500. Mr W says if RAC had correctly recorded the breakdowns as separate, he would have been fully reimbursed for his losses. So Mr W wants an ombudsman 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. The Investigator set out a comprehensive timeline of events from when Mr W broke down to when his car was repatriated and later repaired. I won’t repeat the timeline in the same level of detail, but focus on the salient remaining points of Mr W’s complaint. I agree that the service Mr W received was poor. It is evident that his car required returning to the garage just after he had collected it. The initial diagnosis according to the receipt the garage provided Mr W with was to replace the battery. According to RAC’s records, the cause of the breakdown was due to a fuel pump. Mr W says it doesn’t make sense for this to

-- 1 of 2 --

be reported when he first contacted RAC, as he reported a low battery warning. The fuel pump/sensor issue wasn’t diagnosed until after his car broke down a second time. For this reason, Mr W believes RAC should treat the breakdowns as two separate claims. RAC set out under the policy its definition of the term ‘claim’ as follows; “Claim means each separate request for service or benefit for cover under any section of this group policy.” RAC added that it isn’t unusual for a car to present multiple faults during the course of one breakdown, which may include additional issues discovered during a diagnosis or repair. It says the only circumstances in which RAC would treat a breakdown separately is if there were distinct, unrelated breakdowns or concerns about a vehicle’s roadworthiness. I’ve carried out a search online to assist with the concern Mr W raised as to the diagnosis for the cause of breakdown for his car. My search shows that it is very common for his make of vehicle to produce a low battery warning where there is a fuel pump or sensor issue. So while I understand Mr W’s wish for the breakdown to be treated as two separate events, I don’t think RAC acted unreasonably by treating it as one. It seems that the low battery warning was not a breakdown issue in isolation, but a symptom of more than one issue. As I’ve said, I agree with Mr W that the service he received was poor. Breaking down at any time is a stressful event. But when it happens abroad, and involves repatriation, the distress and inconvenience is often heightened, and especially when it impacts on a holiday. I understand Mr W’s concerns about the recording of information by RAC’s European partner. There isn’t anything for me to be able to suggest that it updated its records following the first breakdown retrospectively. I can see that further repairs were needed, there was a delay in obtaining parts, and further parts and repairs were needed again. I’ve no doubt that the experience for Mr W caused him considerable distress and inconvenience. However, I think RAC has correctly treated the breakdown as one claim and applied the policy limit for the claim. And I think a total compensation award of £400 is within the range of reasonable and in line with awards we give for similar cases. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require RAC Insurance Limited to pay Mr W £200 compensation in addition to the £200 its’ already paid for the distress and inconvenience caused. I understand RAC Insurance Limited has already paid this and Mr W has received it. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 25 April 2026. Geraldine Newbold Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --