Auto & General has been ordered to pay compensation after an ombudsman’s investigation of a motor claim uncovered a mysterious phone call telling a customer: “Don’t call AFCA.”

The insurer has also been criticised because almost two pages of claim file notes covering the period of the alleged call – made just 30 minutes after the customer told an internal dispute resolution team he would take his complaint to the ombudsman – were fully redacted.

“That is not acceptable, given the serious nature of this particular matter,” the Australian Financial Complaints Authority said.

The policyholder said he found the call “threatening” and a breach of his privacy, because he believed the company must have given his details to a third party.

Auto & General said it had no record of the call, made from a mobile phone.

AFCA said: “In regard to the complainant’s claim that the insurer breached his privacy, given the serious nature of this issue, I am of the opinion the insurer should have done more to verify whether the phone number belongs to its staff or a repairer. If so, appropriate action could then be taken, including, for example, training to ensure such incidents do not occur in future.”

Related article: Ombudsman sides with insurer after crooks make off with copper

The customer had lodged a claim after his Range Rover Sport was damaged in a collision in June last year. The insurer authorised repairs, but the vehicle was returned with further defects and subsequently found by independent experts to warrant being declared a total loss.

The insurer settled on the vehicle as a write-off in April – 10 months after the crash – but AFCA says its claim handling caused avoidable delays and inconvenience. The insurer’s authorised repairer should have identified much earlier the damage that led to the total loss.

AFCA has ordered the insurer to pay $2735 compensation for non-financial loss, on top of an earlier $265 ex-gratia payment.

The insurer should also compensate the customer for lost income caused by its claim mismanagement and refusal to provide a hire car.

See the ruling here.