Admiral Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6120736

The complaint Mr M complains that Admiral Insurance Company Limited (“Admiral”) is responsible for mishandling a claim on his motor insurance policy. What happened A car-maker made a car in about 2016. For the year from October 2024, Mr M had a comprehensive policy with Admiral. Mr M acquired the car. From at least March 2025, the policy covered the car. After a delay, Mr M reported to Admiral in mid-August 2025 that the car had been involved in an incident. By mid-November 2025, Mr M had complained to Admiral (“this complaint”) including about its repeated requests for information, delays, poor communication and change of file- handlers. By a final response dated 18 November 2025, Admiral accepted this complaint in part. It said it was sending Mr M a cheque for £200.00. The final response invited Mr M to submit evidence of any other losses. Mr M brought this complaint to us in late November 2025. By early December 2025, Mr M had complained to Admiral about further failure to call him back and incorrect information causing further delay. By a final response dated 10 December 2025, Admiral accepted that complaint and said it was sending Mr M a cheque for £50.00. Our investigator recommended (on 9 January 2026) that this complaint should be upheld in part. She thought that £200.00 wasn’t enough. She recommended that Admiral should compensate Mr M a further £100.00 – so the total would be £300.00. Admiral accepted the investigator’s opinion. By early January 2026, Mr M had complained to Admiral including that it had sent a compensation cheque to an old address. By a final response dated 12 January 2026, Admiral accepted that complaint in part and said it was sending Mr M a further cheque for £80.00. By late January 2026, Mr M had made a further complaint to Admiral.

-- 1 of 4 --

By a final response dated 22 January 2026, Admiral accepted that complaint in part and said it was sending Mr M a further cheque for £350.00. Mr M disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. He asked for an ombudsman to review this complaint. He says, in summary, that: • Admiral identified his vehicle as a total loss. • He provided ID in August 2025. Admiral placed his claim on hold at a very early stage due to ID validation issues. • Admiral appointed an investigator who attended in person, took a statement, and photographed his ID. • Admiral changed his vehicle status multiple times between total loss and repairable without clear explanation. • Different handlers made repeated requests for documents already provided. • Promised callbacks did not occur, requiring him to repeatedly chase progress. • He was left without transport for a prolonged period. • He lost earnings after being unable to work for approximately three weeks. • He experienced significant and ongoing stress, anxiety, and distress. • His sleep was disrupted over an extended period, and he experienced breathing issues that were exacerbated by stress. • He spent an estimated over 100 hours on the phone over several months, repeatedly chasing Admiral, correcting errors, and attempting to progress his claim due to missed call-backs, poor communication, and changing information. • His file handler was changed multiple times, resulting in repetition, inconsistency, and further delays. • After the final response dated 18 November 2025, Admiraal disapproved his ID validation, placed his claim on hold and withheld his total loss payment. • We should award higher compensation. 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. Scope of this decision The Financial Conduct Authority’s dispute resolution rules are binding on the Financial Ombudsman Service. One such rule is that, before we can investigate a complaint, the consumer must first have made that complaint to the regulated firm and waited for up to eight weeks for a final response. It sometimes happens that a consumer makes a complaint to the firm, receives a final response and brings the complaint to us, but with additional points of complaint. In such circumstances, we can investigate the original complaint, but we would have to deal with the additional points in a separate investigation.

-- 2 of 4 --

Another rule is that we operate a two-stage process under which an investigator gives an opinion and, if either party asks, an ombudsman gives a final decision. I haven’t seen enough evidence that Mr M’s complaint to Admiral up to mid-November 2025 included the following points: • Admiral changed his vehicle status multiple times between total loss and repairable without clear explanation. • He was left without transport for a prolonged period. • He lost earnings after being unable to work for approximately three weeks. • After the final response dated 18 November 2025, Admiraal disapproved his ID validation, placed his claim on hold and withheld his total loss payment. So I consider that the investigator was correct not to give an opinion on those additional complaint points. I make no findings in this decision about those points. This decision I consider that the incident and the need to make a claim were bound to cause Mr M some upset and inconvenience. The address on Mr M’s recent bank statements was his mother’s address rather than his. So the bank statements didn’t match Mr M’s address. On 19 and 26 August 2025, Admiral asked Mr M for recent bank statements. Despite his explanation, Admiral repeated its request for bank statements. Admiral failed to make clear that it expected the addresses to match. Admiral should’ve updated Mr M more often. So he felt the need to chase for progress and updates. Admiral didn’t call Mr M back when it should’ve, including in October 2025. From its file, I’m satisfied that as early as 18 August 2025, Admiral did contact the person who witnessed the accident. I don’t hold Admiral responsible for the witness’s delay in responding. However, Admiral failed to chase this up. Nevertheless, by mid- November 2025, Admiral had seen a statement from the witness. Admiral’s first complaints-handler failed to check that the complaint was one that she could access and deal with. So another complaints-handler had to take over. I don’t consider that Admiral was responsible for any unreasonable delay between mid- August 2025 and mid - November 2025. After all, that was only three months and there were significant issues for Admiral to investigate. I’ve thought about the failures I’ve identified in Admiral’s response. Moreover, I’ve thought about the extra impact of those failures on Mr M at an already difficult time for him. I don’t under-estimate his wasted time, frustration and worry. Putting things right Overall, I conclude that a total of £300.00 is fair and reasonable and in line with our published guidelines for compensation for distress and inconvenience. So I find it fair and reasonable to direct Admiral to pay Mr M, in addition to its payment of £200.00, a further £100.00 for distress and inconvenience.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. I direct Admiral Insurance Company Limited to pay Mr M, in addition to its payment of £200.00, a further £100.00 for distress and inconvenience. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --