AXA Insurance UK Plc · DRN-5938309

The complaint Miss T is unhappy with the liability decision made by AXA Insurance UK Plc (AXA) following a claim made by a third party on her car insurance policy. What happened In April 2023, Miss T was involved in a road traffic accident with a third-party cyclist. The third party sustained injuries and made a claim against Miss T’s policy. In February 2024, AXA settled the third party’s claim. In July 2025, Miss T informed AXA she had been found not guilty for the driving offence she was prosecuted for after the accident. She believed this confirmed she wasn’t at fault for the accident and complained about AXA’s decision to settle the third party’s claim. In its response to the complaint, AXA said that even though the criminal court didn’t convict Miss T of a driving offence, a civil court could still decide she was fully or partially liable for the accident. AXA stated it made its decision based on how it believed a civil court would approach the case based on the available evidence at the time. It also said the third party’s injuries were significant and it settled the claim at the earliest stage possible to minimise costs. Lastly, AXA acknowledged it didn’t review Miss T’s complaint within the required timeframe and offered £50 compensation which Miss T rejected. Unhappy with AXA’s response, Miss T brought her complaint to our Service. She said AXA’s liability decision has increased her insurance premiums and caused her reputational damage. She asked that the claim is removed from insurance databases. Our Investigator felt AXA had acted fairly and reasonably in coming to the decision it had in respect of liability. Miss T disagreed. She said AXA relied on a solicitor’s early view rather than pursuing all the available witnesses. She also said the claim settlement of around £800,000 suggested AXA sought to limit its future exposure without ensuring the facts had been fully established. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved, it has been passed to me for a 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. I’m aware I’ve set out the background to this complaint in less detail than the parties have presented it. I’m not going to respond to every single point raised. Instead, I’ve focused on what I find are the key issues here. I assure both parties, however, that I’ve read and considered everything they’ve provided. What I have to decide is whether AXA has acted fairly and reasonably in accepting liability and settling the third party’s claim. I’ve carefully considered the information provided by both Miss T and AXA. Having done so, I’ve decided to not uphold this complaint and I’ll explain why.

-- 1 of 3 --

The terms and conditions of Miss T’s policy make it clear that AXA can take over the defence or settlement of any claim on Miss T’s behalf. This is standard in the motor insurance industry and means AXA didn’t need the consent or agreement of Miss T in order to accept liability under the claim and settle with the third party. It isn’t our Service’s role to say who’s at fault for causing an accident. This is the role of the courts. Our role is to consider whether AXA’s decision to accept liability was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. For me to be persuaded that AXA reached a decision which was fair and reasonable, I’d need to see that it based its decision taking into account things such as the version of events provided by both parties, legal precedent, the Highway Code and any other available evidence. With this in mind, I’ve carefully considered how AXA has handled the claim. And I’m satisfied it carried out a reasonable investigation, taking into consideration all of the available evidence. I say this as AXA clearly considered both parties’ version of events, the Highway Code, previous caselaw and consulted its solicitors in deciding whether it could look to defend Miss T. So I think it acted fairly here. The circumstances of the accident don’t appear to have been disputed. Miss T was emerging from a minor road onto a main road that the third party was travelling on. Miss T didn’t see the third party until the collision occurred. AXA consulted its solicitor at the time who was of the opinion there were no reasonable prospects of defending the claim from the third party. The solicitor explained it was Miss T’s responsibility to keep a lookout for other vehicles on the road, including cyclists. And as Miss T didn’t see the cyclist prior to the impact, it was most likely that she hadn’t kept a proper lookout. I don’t think it was unreasonable of AXA to rely on its solicitor’s legal advice. The solicitor has the relevant expertise in the field and had carried out an assessment of the claim. I’m not saying Miss T is at fault for the accident. But AXA is entitled to take into account what it thinks the likely outcome would be if the matter proceeded to court. And I think it has acted fairly in this respect. Miss T has raised concerns about AXA not pursuing all the available witnesses. However, AXA did contact the one witness it had been provided details for. This witness confirmed Miss T’s account that the cyclist was overtaking stationary vehicles on their offside. AXA has said Miss T didn’t provide any further witness details but this wouldn’t have impacted its liability outcome as the circumstances of the accident weren’t in dispute. So, I think on balance, AXA made a fair and reasonable decision not to defend the claim and settle on a fault basis. AXA says it has done so on a ‘without prejudice’ basis, meaning if Miss T wanted to bring her own legal proceedings against the third party, she’s not prevented from doing so at her own cost. This doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. I appreciate why Miss T thinks AXA’s decision to accept liability was unfair given that she was found not guilty for the driving offence. However, the purpose of criminal proceedings is to determine whether a driver has committed a crime. And the evidential threshold is high and requires evidence of a wrongdoing ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This isn’t what AXA was assessing here. AXA’s role was to decide who was more likely than not the responsible party for the collision. I know Miss T feels strongly about having a fault claim recorded against her. But it’s important to explain that when insurers record a claim, the categorisation is based on whether the insurer is able to recover the costs it incurred on the claim. It doesn't necessarily reflect the actual circumstances of the accident or who was to blame for an accident.

-- 2 of 3 --

While the term “fault” or “non-fault” is commonly used to describe a claim, the actual terminology is “no claim bonus (NCB) allowed’ or “NCB disallowed”. With “NCB allowed” meaning an insurer has been able to recover its costs in full, from another party and with “NCB disallowed” meaning the insurer hasn’t been able to recover its costs in full, from another party. This is standard industry practice so I cannot ask AXA to deviate from that. As AXA has incurred an outlay on the claim, it wasn’t unreasonable that it recorded the claim as NCB disallowed. Miss T thinks the claim settlement of around £800,000 suggests AXA sought to limit its future exposure without ensuring the facts had been fully established. AXA has explained it settled the claim at the earliest stage possible to stop the claim from progressing to court as this would’ve increased the costs further. And that the settlement figure reflected a discounted settlement to account for the cyclist’s own negligence in carrying out a risky manoeuvre. Court action can be resource and cost intensive. So, I wouldn’t expect an insurer, in this case AXA, to bear the costs of such an action in a situation where it was aware it was unlikely to succeed. It follows that I don't think AXA did anything wrong by settling the claim rather than defending it in court. From the information available to it, I think AXA reached its decision reasonably and in line with the policy’s terms. It follows that any impact the claim may have on Miss T’s insurance premiums isn’t something I can say AXA is responsible for. I think AXA treated Miss T fairly and as it would any other customer in the same circumstances. So, I won’t require AXA to do anything more than pay the £50 compensation it has already offered for its handling of Miss T’s complaint. My final decision AXA Insurance UK Plc has already made an offer to pay Miss T £50 compensation. I find this offer to be fair in all the circumstances. So, my final decision is that AXA Insurance UK Plc should pay £50 compensation to Miss T, if it hasn’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss T to accept or reject my decision before 31 March 2026. Linda Tare Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --