Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6166006

The complaint Mr G is unhappy with the amount offered by Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (Admiral) in settlement of a motor insurance claim after his car was written off. What happened Mr G insured his car with Admiral. Following an accident, he made a claim. Admiral accepted the claim and treated the car as a total loss. It paid £25,172 to the finance company, less the policy excess. It said this reflected the car’s market value. Mr G didn’t think this was enough. He said his car was worth more and Admiral hadn’t properly taken account of its optional extras. Admiral didn’t uphold the complaint. It maintained its settlement reflected a fair market value. Mr G referred the complaint to our Service. Our Investigator didn’t think Admiral’s valuation was fair. He concluded a fairer value was £27,350 and recommended Admiral pay the difference, plus 8% simple interest. Mr G accepted. Admiral didn’t agree. As the matter remained unresolved, it’s come to me for a final 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. Having done so, I’ve decided to uphold the complaint for broadly the same reasons as our Investigator. I’ve explained why below, focusing on the points and evidence I consider material to my decision. The key issue I’ve had to decide is whether the amount Admiral paid fairly reflected the car’s market value at the time of loss. Mr G’s policy says Admiral must pay the car’s “market value” in the event of a total loss. The policy defines this as: “The cost of replacing your vehicle; with a similar make, model, age, mileage and condition.” Establishing the actual value of a car isn’t an exact science, but we expect insurers to consider available data to make a fair offer. Our normal approach when considering complaints about an insurer’s settlement following a total loss is to consider the values given by vehicle valuation guides. These gather data from several sources to establish the selling price of similar cars, in order to establish a value based on mileage, condition, and specification. We’d then expect an insurer to make an offer in line with the highest value these tools provide, unless there are persuasive reasons to believe that value is an outlier.

-- 1 of 3 --

Admiral based its valuation of £25,172 on the average of three guide values, which were £24,840, £24,926, and £25,750. My starting point is therefore that Admiral hasn’t followed what our Service considers to be a fair approach to these types of cases, albeit I note its settlement was close to the highest value. I’ve gone on to consider whether, nevertheless, I’m persuaded that this was a fair amount. We’ve obtained four valuations for Mr G’s car, ranging from £24,840 to £27,350. Two are higher than the amount Admiral paid. I place particular weight on the highest valuation of £27,350. This is because it explicitly accounts for the optional extras Mr G has shown were fitted to his car. The other guides don’t demonstrate that these have been specifically reflected. In those circumstances, I’m not persuaded they provide as accurate a reflection of the car’s market value. Admiral has said the guides it used don’t assign itemised values to optional extras, that these depreciate unpredictably, and vary based on how desirable they may be to different buyers. I accept that may be the case in general. But here I have clear evidence from one guide that those extras have been specifically considered and increase the value. In many respects, it would seem fair to say that this guide, in this case, is the one that most accurately reflects Mr G’s car, as it includes the relevant optional extras. I can’t say the same of the other guides on this occasion. I’ve also considered the adverts provided. Admiral initially supplied ten adverts to support its valuation. However, I found only two directly comparable to Mr G’s car. Admiral has provided information about two more adverts, but they’re not detailed enough for me to determine how similar they are to the overall specification of Mr G’s car. Mr G also provided two adverts which support a higher valuation, but they’re from dealers who generally charge more. I’ve kept in mind that the valuation guides are experts in this area and use a lot of information when coming to their valuation figures. Mr G’s car is a common make and model. Looking at an online car retailer’s website, there are more than ten cars for sale for the same year and with similar mileage to Mr G’s. Having considered the adverts carefully, I’m not persuaded they provide sufficiently strong or consistent evidence to depart from the valuation guides. They therefore don’t persuade me that following our Service’s approach isn’t fair and reasonable in this case. Taking everything into account, I’m not persuaded Admiral’s settlement fairly reflected the car’s market value at the time of loss based on all the available evidence. I’m satisfied the most reliable evidence supports a value of £27,350. Putting things right To resolve this complaint, Admiral should pay Mr G the difference between its original settlement and the fair market value of £27,350. That difference is £2,178. Admiral should also add 8% interest per year to that amount, from the date of its original settlement to the date it pays the difference. This reflects the period of time Mr G could have had these funds, but didn’t. In summary, I require Admiral to: • Pay Mr G £2,178

-- 2 of 3 --

• Add 8% simple interest* per year to that amount from the date of Admiral’s original settlement to the date of payment. *If Admiral considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr G how much it’s taken off. It should also give Mr G a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given, I uphold Mr G’s complaint and direct Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited to put things right as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Chris Woolaway Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --