Automobile Association Insurance Services Limited · DRN-5974111

The complaint Mr B has complained about issues he encountered when he tried to take out a contents insurance policy online with Automobile Association Insurance Services Limited (AA). What happened Mr B used a price comparison website to find a new home contents policy. He selected an AA policy. When he went to take out the policy, he received an error message and couldn’t complete the purchase. He bought a policy with another insurer that he said was more expensive. Mr B contacted AA the following day to explain the problems he had with making the payment. Mr B then complained to AA. He was concerned that he was unable to purchase the policy because of the payment issue. He said wasn’t the first time this had happened. He also said that when he spoke to AA, the person was unhelpful, cried and put the phone down on him. AA had also written to him at an incorrect address. When AA replied, it said it hadn’t found any errors in the quotation process and there were no errors in its log from that date. It said no other customer had reported this issue and it didn’t agree the error was with its system. It said customers should be treated with courtesy and care and that it understood a manager had already spoken to Mr B about the phone call. It apologised that the complaint acknowledgement had been sent to an incorrect address. When Mr B complained to this Service, AA reviewed the complaint again. It offered Mr B £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill because of the customer service issues with the call handler and for writing to him at the wrong address. This offer was put to Mr B. He rejected it. So, our Investigator looked at the complaint. He upheld it and said AA should pay Mr B £250 compensation. He said AA had said it found no payment errors in its system. He had no reason to doubt Mr B’s testimony that when he tried to take out the policy he had checked all the information he provided and confirmed it was correct. He also had no reason to doubt AA’s findings when it investigated the error. He said AA highlighting the issue to its IT department was what he would have expected it to do. AA had also accepted there were errors in the service it provided. This included that if the call handler had escalated the payment issue earlier, a discount might have been possible. AA also accepted it had written to Mr B at the wrong address. Mr B had described the impact the issues had on him, so our Investigator said £250 was fair as compensation. As AA didn’t agree with the level of compensation, the complaint was referred to me 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 uphold this complaint. I will explain why. When Mr B tried to take out the AA policy he had found on a price comparison website, he was unable to complete the purchase. Mr B provided this Service with a screenshot showing

-- 1 of 3 --

a “508 error”. AA’s IT department looked into what had happened and didn’t find any errors in its log. It also explained to this Service that a 508 error was also known as a ‘mandatory field missing’ and typically indicated that a required hadn’t been completed in the payment form or it had incorrect data. The information it provided said this could be due to a range of reasons such as incorrect card data, insufficient funds or issues with the payment gateway’s server. The screenshot Mr B provided that showed the 508 error said “Mandatory field missing. HPP_BILLING_CITY not present in request”. I understand this to mean the payment process identified that the billing city field hadn’t been completed. I’m not sure whether this was, for example, because somehow this field had been left blank, although I’m aware Mr B has said he checked the form, or because there was a fault with the form itself. But, I’ve no reason to doubt that Mr B had a problem when he tried to take out the policy. I’ve also no reason to doubt that when AA’s IT department looked into the issue, it was unable to find the error. I’m also aware Mr B found this inconvenient and frustrating as he wanted to take out the policy the same day. Mr B tried to take out the policy in the evening, by which time it was too late to phone AA. He tried to take the policy out again the following day, but the price had increased. So, he phoned AA to discuss it. I’ve listened to that phone call. It seemed to be a difficult call from the beginning. During the call, Mr B explained what had happened and he said the policy price had now increased by about £30. Mr B seemed concerned that the call handler hadn’t understood what had happened and that she sometimes spoke over him. She also told Mr B that nothing could be done about the price increase. I’m aware that at the end of the call, the call handler appeared to be crying. The call handler also seemed to terminate the call. I also listened to the call from a team manager to Mr B, who spoke to him a shortly time later as he had asked the call handler to raise a complaint. The manager said she hadn’t listened to the whole call, but she accepted it hadn’t gone well. She also said the call handler could have spoken to a manager at the time about the price, given the reasons why Mr B hadn’t been able to take out the policy. She said it was likely it would have been possible to offer him a discounted price. The manager apologised for what had happened during the call and said she would go through it with the call handler to look at how things could have been done differently. So, I think AA was honest and open about the issues it had identified and that it accepted it had provided poor customer service. During that call, Mr B also made clear that although what had been discussed addressed the issues with the call itself, it didn’t address that he’d had to take a policy out elsewhere and this had cost him more than the AA quote. The manager said she would add this to the complaint. When I read the complaint response, I couldn’t see that Mr B taking a policy out elsewhere and at additional cost was addressed. The complaint response also said the call being escalated to a manager was the correct response. However, it didn’t directly acknowledge any of the issues identified by the manager, despite it already being accepted that the call had been difficult. So, I’ve thought about AA’s offer of £100 compensation in this context. I don’t think AA’s complaint response acknowledged the customer service issues a manager had found. I also don’t think it fully addressed the complaint Mr B raised. AA accepted during the manager’s phone call that the call handler could have asked for advice from a manager and he would likely have been offered a discount. This meant Mr B was given incorrect information during the initial phone call. Because this didn’t happen, Mr B had to find a policy elsewhere and at a higher cost. So, I think that inconvenienced Mr B and created additional work for him to

-- 2 of 3 --

find a new policy, which he said was on less favourable terms. I’m aware the complaint response also accepted AA had written to Mr B at an incorrect address. I think there were a range of issues and each of these had an impact on Mr B. Mr B has also said what happened caused him distress, kept him awake at night and affected his mood. So, having thought about this, I think AA should pay Mr B £250 for the impact on him of what happened. In my view, this is in line with this Service’s normal approach to compensation and more fairly reflects the impact on Mr B. My final decision For the reasons I have given, it is my final decision that this complaint is upheld. I require Automobile Association Insurance Services Limited to pay Mr B £250 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Louise O'Sullivan Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --