DRN-6304990

The complaint Mr M has complained about the service he received from Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited when he needed to amend an annual travel insurance policy. What happened Mr M held an annual travel policy that was due to expire on 13 October 2025. He was due to visit his parents abroad for a week, starting on 4 July 2025. Due to his father then being diagnosed with a serious illness, Mr M needed to extend the trip. He wasn’t sure of his return date; however, he suspected that his stay might exceed the 31-day maximum single trip length provided under the policy. He rang Admiral on 2 July 2025 and was told that he’d be able to extend his cover whilst he was away. Very sadly, his father then died suddenly on 18 July 2025. He rang Admiral on 1 August 2025 and paid £20.32 to change his cover to 45 days. In response to the complaint, Admiral maintained its stance in relation to the additional premium. However, it said that it could have dealt with his complaint sooner and so it paid him £25 as a gesture of goodwill for the distress and inconvenience caused. Our investigator thought that Admiral had acted reasonably in the circumstances. Mr M disagrees and so the complaint has been passed to me for a 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. The relevant regulator’s principles say that a firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence. And that it must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. I’ve also considered the Financial Conduct Authority’s overarching Principles for Businesses. That includes Principle 12 of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Principles for Businesses (‘the Consumer Duty’) which says a firm must act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers (such as acting in good faith and avoid causing foreseeable harm). It’s important to make clear that we’re not the industry regulator. We have no power to regulate the financial businesses we cover, or to direct them to change their processes or procedures. Insurers are entitled to decide what risks they are willing to cover, and what they charge for the cost of that cover, as long as they exercise their judgement fairly and consistently and in accordance with their internal guidelines. This service wouldn’t normally get involved with how they calculate risk or their premium pricing structures. Mr M accepts this point, although he feels that the cost of extending the coverage was excessive, compared to the price of the original policy and the limited time remaining until

-- 1 of 3 --

the annual term expired. He says he had never assumed that Admiral was seeking to charge him more than say, a holidaymaker wishing to extend their beach holiday by two weeks. However, he says the actual cost is largely incidental to his complaint. He says that the policy wording doesn’t make it clear that a fee will always be charged. That being the case, the loss of a parent should count as an exceptional circumstance. He says the policy wording created a false expectation which has led to him being treated unfairly in the circumstances. The policy wording states: ‘For annual multi-trip policies - The policy covers all trips (except winter sports trips) of no more than 31 days that you take within the policy term shown in the policy schedule. We may agree to cover trips lasting more than 31 days. If you want cover for a trip of 31 days or more, please phone us on.....’ And, under ‘General conditions’: ‘When you tell us about a change we may reassess your cover, your premium or both.’ I appreciate what Mr M has said about the above terms using the word ‘may’ and not ‘will’. It’s not within this service’s gift to compel Admiral to change this wording. Regardless of that, I don’t consider the terms to be unreasonable. It’s not an uncommon term in insurance contracts, and it gives insurers the flexibility to exercise their discretion in certain scenarios if they so choose. The additional premium meant that he had cover for the extra days he was abroad. Admiral has provided underwriting evidence of its pricing structure for a mid-term adjustment, showing that the cost would have been the same for any other similar policyholder wishing to increase their single trip coverage from 31 days to 45 days. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr M’s situation and am sorry for his loss. It must have been a very distressing and difficult time for him and his wider family. Of course, he needed to stay abroad to support his mother during that time. So, I can certainly understand why he feels that Admiral should have waived the fee in this instance. He has characterised the charging of the additional premium as Admiral profiting from his father’s death and taking advantage of him as a vulnerable customer. Whilst I can understand why he would see it that way, overall, I’m not persuaded that is the case. I understand how strongly Mr M feels about this issue and I am sorry to disappoint him. However, I am unable to uphold his complaint. Admiral charged the extra premium it was entitled to for the additional cover, and Mr M had the benefit of that cover. Whilst it may have discretion to waive the extra fee, I’m unable to conclude that it did anything significantly wrong by not doing so on this occasion. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I do not uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask X to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Carole Clark

-- 2 of 3 --

Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --