I was denied/refused reimburse my breakdown recovery costs following an incident on 1 April 2026 in Tongue, Scotland.
At the time of the incident, my vehicle had left the road and was immobilised. I contacted Eversure to arrange assistance and therefore complied with the requirement to initiate a callout. While I was attempting to progress this, a local resident contacted a nearby garage who attended promptly due to the circumstances and location.
Your refusal relies on the assertion that the recovery was not arranged through your callout process. However, this position is not supported by a clear or transparent term in the policy. While the policy refers to recovery being arranged as part of an initial callout, it does not clearly state that reimbursement will be refused in circumstances where:
the policyholder has already contacted Eversure, and
recovery is carried out in an urgent situation before arrangements are finalised.
Furthermore, I understand that Eversure subsequently contacted the same recovery garage. This raises serious questions about the consistency and fairness of your position, as it suggests the recovery provider was acceptable and effectively recognised.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be fair and transparent. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer. In this case, the application of your policy appears both unclear and unfair, particularly given that I acted reasonably and in good faith in a potentially unsafe roadside situation.
Requesting others beware of tricky policy wording and not to fall for cheap price like me. I will go for trustwordy breakdown recovery companies who can fulfill the claim though i may need to pay double.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
