DRN-6209023

The complaint Miss P has complained about the way Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited handled a claim she made under her car insurance policy. What happened Miss P was unfortunately involved in a collision in September 2025. She reported the incident to her insurer Admiral. Later in September 2025 Miss P complained to Admiral. She said Admiral had provided misinformation and caused avoidable delays in handling her claim. Miss P was left for over four hours waiting for recovery following the incident. In November 2025 Admiral upheld Miss P’s complaint. It acknowledged that its communication could have been better and it had caused distress and inconvenience. Admiral apologised to Miss P and paid her B £150 compensation. Miss P remained unhappy and asked us to look at her complaint. One of our Investigators thought Admiral had done enough to resolve the complaint. Miss P disagrees. In summary she says the compensation award doesn’t reflect the significant distress and inconvenience Admiral caused her by its errors. So she wants an ombudsman 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. As the Investigator explained, any matters Miss P is unhappy with following Admiral’s final response dated 5 November 2025 will need to be first raised with Admiral. So they do not form part of my decision. This means I am considering whether the compensation award Admiral paid of £150 is reasonable for its failures in handling her claim up until 5 November 2025. Miss P reported the incident on the same morning, on 8 September 2025. I can see that it took over four hours for recovery to reach her and Admiral agreed this was an unacceptable period of time to wait. On review of photos provided of the damage to her car, Admiral decided to settle Miss P’s claim as a total loss on 9 September 2025. Between 10 September 2025 and 12 September 2025 there was back and forth between Miss P and Admiral to discuss her options as she wanted her car to be repaired. So Admiral said it would reconsider its decision if Miss P obtained independent repair quotes. Miss P provided estimates from independent garages on 12 September 2025. On 16 September 2025 Admiral authorised for repairs to proceed by a non-approved repairer, based on an estimate they provided. Having to make a claim will inevitably cause disruption and inconvenience. It is unfortunately

-- 1 of 2 --

unavoidable. I think there was additional communication between Miss P and Admiral largely due to the fact that Miss P wanted her car to be repaired. I appreciate that between 9 September 2025 and 19 September 2025 there were times when Admiral provided incorrect information: primarily that it was proceeding with settling the claim as a total loss after it had agreed repairs. These are failures in Admiral’s communication and caused unnecessary distress and confusion. Overall I think Admiral dealt with Miss P’s claim promptly. The period of time between the incident and Admiral’s decision to authorise repairs was one week. I have taken the duration of time for the inconvenience caused into account. I’ve no doubt that the errors Admiral made in some of its communication with Miss P caused additional distress and inconvenience. But I think Admiral resolved them relatively quickly. I understand Miss P’s car was recovered to a non-approved repairer shortly after authorisation of repairs on 16 September 2025. Miss P’s car was still undergoing repair at the non-approved garage when Admiral replied to her complaint in November 2025. Overall I find that the compensation Admiral paid for the time Miss P spent awaiting recovery on 8 September 2025 and its poor communication was reasonable. It is in line with awards we give in similar circumstances. I note that in Admiral’s final response, it said it would consider any claim for financial loss if Miss P wanted to provide information about that. I think this was fair. My final decision I’m sorry to disappoint Miss P. But for the reasons I’ve given above, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss P to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Geraldine Newbold Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --