Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6154453

The complaint Mr W complains about Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited’s valuation of his car after it was declared a total loss following a claim on his car insurance policy, and the way Admiral treated him throughout the claims process. What happened Mr W’s car was involved in an accident in May 2025, and he claimed on his car insurance policy. On the date of the accident, Mr W started reporting the claim online, then telephoned Admiral to finish the process and organise for his car to be recovered. Admiral said it would instruct a recovery agent to take the car to a safe location, but the police had attended the scene, and their recovery operatives recovered the car first. On that same phone call, Admiral told Mr W that he needed to organise transport home, and they could complete the rest of the claim once he was safe. Admiral inspected the car, deemed it uneconomical to repair, and recorded it as a total loss. Due to the age of Mr W’s car, industry valuation guides for cars of similar make, model, age, mileage and condition were not readily available, so Admiral engaged an independent assessor to determine the market value of the car and they used two sales adverts to arrive at a valuation of £3,722. Mr W said this figure was too low and said the cars in the adverts used were not in the same condition as his car or of the same specification. He provided sales adverts for two cars – one selling for £5,195 and another selling for £4,500. Admiral did not accept these adverts, as the cars were manufactured in a different year to Mr W’s car and had significantly lower mileage. Mr W was unhappy with this, and complained to Admiral about the settlement figure, as well as: • Admiral leaving him at the scene of the accident without arranging onward transport or telling him about his entitlement to claim back onward travel costs. • Admiral’s overall communication about the claim, including Mr W having to chase for updates, being misadvised about how the claim would be handled and not receiving evidence of the adverts used in the valuation of his car, as well as failing to consider his neurodivergence and therefore his need for clear communications. • Delays in resolving the valuation dispute. • An error Admiral made in not covering his daughters to drive on his policy, despite taking his instructions to add them as named drivers. • The lack of personal injury cover on this car, despite being added to the Admiral policies he had on other vehicles. Admiral upheld the complaint points relating to their overall communication about the claim and the error in not covering his daughters and offered Mr W £175 in compensation for the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused by these errors. Mr W was unhappy with this outcome and brought his complaint to this Service.

-- 1 of 5 --

Our Investigator reviewed the complaint and thought Admiral should increase their compensation figure from £175 to £500 to reflect the considerable distress, upset and worry caused by Admiral’s poor communications during the life of the claim. However, the Investigator thought Admiral’s valuation of £3,722 was not unreasonable given the limited information available for a car of such age and condition. Mr W responded to the Investigator, saying he didn’t agree the valuation figure was acceptable, and he didn’t think they had considered the full impact of the failure to cover his daughters. So, the complaint has been passed to me 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. I have upheld this complaint, and I will now explain why. Firstly, I want to express my sympathies for the difficulties Mr W has found himself in. Being involved in an accident has no doubt been stressful, and it is understandable that these events have caused him considerable upset. Before I discuss Mr W’s complaint points, I want to highlight that the role of this Service is not that of a regulator. It’s not our role to fine and punish businesses. Our role is to review his complaint and decide whether Admiral acted fairly and reasonably. If we feel it hasn’t done enough, we consider what’s a fair way to put things right, taking into account the actual impact any failing has had on the consumer. Left at the scene of the accident Mr W has said that he felt abandoned as Admiral did not arrange transport for him after the accident, and they did not tell him he was entitled to claim for onward travel until later in the claims process. Mr W had Gold level cover on his policy, which entitled him to: “…expenses incurred up to £50 per person, up to a maximum of £150, to travel home or to your original destination; or if you are more than 25 miles away from your home address, up to a maximum of £200 for overnight accommodation.” Mr W’s entitlement to onward travel expenses is explained in the policy booklet. But an accident is a stressful time, and I think it would have been reasonable for Admiral to have advised Mr W of this entitlement during the telephone call when he notified them of the accident. In that call, the telephone adviser told Mr W that the recovery agent may be able to take him to a safe place, but that he would need to arrange his own onward travel. They did not highlight that he was covered for this expense, and therefore I don’t think Admiral have acted fairly. Communications, poor claim handling and neurodivergence Mr W is unhappy he had to chase Admiral for updates, that he was misadvised about where his car was, whether it was a total loss or repairable, and that his neurodivergence wasn’t considered in the way they treated him. Admiral have accepted they could have done more to improve Mr W’s experience during the claims process. Mr W says he told Admiral about his neurodivergence during or shortly after the claim notification call of 6 May 2025, but Admiral says they didn’t become aware of this until 21 May 2025. I have listened to the notification call of 6 May, and Mr W did not inform

-- 2 of 5 --

Admiral of his neurodivergence then. The exact date he told them is unclear, but irrespective of this, I think Admiral should have been clearer in explaining what was happening on his claim. Throughout the claims process, Mr W wanted clarity about next steps and what was needed to progress the claim. I don’t intend to restate every communication between Mr W and Admiral, but I have considered all communications available, and I agree Admiral should have gone further to keep Mr W clearly informed. Further, I accept Mr W’s neurodivergence has likely made the impact of these failings more acute, and whether Admiral knew about this or not, I don’t think they treated Mr W fairly in the way they communicated with him and handled his claim. The valuation dispute It’s not my role to value Mr W’s car. My role is to decide whether Admiral acted fairly and reasonably in arriving at their market value figure. When valuing a car, it’s standard industry practice that insurers will look to obtain multiple valuations from different valuation guides. And it’s considered good practice to value the car in line with the highest of this range unless there’s evidence to show this isn’t fair. However, in this case Admiral has shown it wasn’t possible to use valuation guides due to the age of Mr W’s car. So, it instructed an independent assessor to value the car which I think was reasonable for cars of this age, as older cars do not appear as frequently on industry guides. Mr W initially suggested £3,500 was an acceptable market value for his car. Admiral’s independent assessor researched advertising listings for similar cars to get an accurate market value, and this brought them to two adverts for similar cars. The prices were averaged, and they arrived at a value of £3,722 (including a £533 adjustment as the cars they found had higher mileage than Mr W’s car). Mr W then said he was unhappy with this figure and did his own research, providing two adverts for cars he believed more closely matched to his car’s condition. The independent assessor replied saying that they were unable to consider these cars because they were manufactured in 2004 whereas Mr W’s car was manufactured in 2003, and the mileage on the cars was significantly lower. The policy booklet describes a car’s market value as: “The cost of replacing your vehicle with a similar make, model, age, mileage and condition.” The independent assessor’s adverts show cars of a similar make, model and age, with significantly higher mileage. Mr W’s adverts show cars of a similar make, model and age, with significantly lower mileage. I think the independent assessor’s sales adverts are persuasive as they show cars of similar make, model and age. Mr W disputes the condition of the cars they have used, but from the adverts I don’t see any clear and obvious deficiencies in the condition that would lead me to disregard them as similar. I recognise Mr W has provided his own adverts to support the valuation of his car, but the difference in mileage in Mr W’s provided adverts are more pronounced than those in the independent assessor’s, and they do not demonstrate that he could not have bought a similar vehicle for the amount Admiral has valued the car at. Ultimately, the key question is this: has Admiral demonstrated that Mr W could have replaced his car with one of similar make, model, age, mileage and condition with the settlement figure Admiral provided? I do not think Admiral have acted unreasonably in accepting the independent assessor’s figure, and I find their evidence persuasive.

-- 3 of 5 --

Named Drivers and Personal injury cover Mr W has said that, despite Admiral upholding this part of his complaint and the Investigator agreeing Admiral made a mistake in not adding cover for his daughters, he believes the full impact of this error has not been made good in the compensation figure. It is not the role of this Service to issue penalties to insurers for hypothetical losses, but to compensate consumers for actual losses as well as distress and inconvenience. I recognise it would have been upsetting for Mr W to learn Admiral hadn’t added his daughters to his policies., However, they didn’t actually lose out because of this. And Admiral took swift action to correct this. Although I accept this would have caused him some upset. Similarly, Mr W has said that the confusion over his entitlement to a claim on his personal injury cover was not reflected in the compensation figure and, had he known he was entitled to claim, he would have claimed and sought appropriate medical treatment. For clarity, Mr W was not directly covered for personal injury under the policy attached to the car involved in this incident, but he holds multiple policies for other cars with Admiral where he has paid for the personal injury supplement. Admiral informed Mr W that he could not claim as the personal injury cover was not added to this policy on 8 May 2025, but they later explained he might have been covered through his other policies on 3 June 2025, by which point Mr W confirmed he had not sought treatment and was unhappy that he was not advised of this potential. And he’s said he lost out on the option of getting treatment. I have not seen evidence that Mr W suffered a direct loss by paying for treatment out of pocket, but Admiral’s miscommunication has no doubt added to the upset and discomfort caused during this claims process. And its actions have impacted Mr W’s ability to utilise a benefit he was entitled to and paid for. Putting things right As I set out above, I do think Admiral has caused Mr W some avoidable upset for the following reasons: • Failing to remind Mr W of his entitlement to onward travel costs. • Poor communication while the claim was being settled, with a lack of updates and inconsistent advice compounding Mr W’s poor customer journey. • Failing to add his daughters as named drivers despite his clear instructions. • Providing incorrect advice to Mr W about his entitlement to claim on the personal injury element of his other policies. I agree with the Investigator that Admiral’s initial compensation figure of £175 wasn’t fair. And I agree that £500 is fairer compensation for all of the distress and inconvenience caused above as it’s in line with what I would have awarded.’ Given what’s happened and the impact this has had on Mr W – particularly when taking into consideration his neurodivergence - I am satisfied that this is an appropriate level of compensation for the trouble Mr W has experienced. My final decision For the reasons I stated above, I am upholding this complaint.

-- 4 of 5 --

Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited should pay Mr W £500 for the confusion and upset caused by its errors in communication and claim handling, net of any compensation already paid. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Joshua Clement Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --