Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6022876

The complaint Mr T complains that Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (Admiral) declined a claim made on his motor insurance policy, cancelled the policy and accused him of fraud. What happened Mr T held a motor insurance policy underwritten by Admiral. Mr T says he went to visit a friend on 15 March 2025 and when he left, he found his car had been stolen from outside his friend’s house. He contacted Admiral to make a claim. During Admiral’s investigation into the claim, he told it he only had one car key. As part of its investigation, Admiral arranged for the car key to be analysed by an independent firm of master locksmiths. The data they recovered from it showed the key was last used in May 2016. So, Admiral asked Mr T for clarification and he explained he was on his way to posting the key when he visited a friend at a car valeting business, so he thought the key was mixed up there. Mr T then sent Admiral the correct key. However, the key analysis showed the key was last used in March 2021 with a mileage of around 38,000 which was similar to the mileage recorded in the MOT of June 2023. Because of the data Admiral had, it arranged for Mr T to be interviewed. It also arranged for Mr T’s friend at the car valeting business to be interviewed. In April 2025, Admiral declined the claim and cancelled the policy. It said it believed there had been a deliberate attempt to mislead it over the circumstances surrounding the incident. Admiral also said it believed Mr T had misrepresented the number of keys he had for the car and had been unable to provide the most recently used key. Admiral thought it was likely that this missing key was used to facilitate the theft. Lastly, it said Mr T had breached a policy term requiring him to answer all questions honestly and not provide false information. Mr T complained about Admiral’s decision to decline his claim. In its response dated August 2025, Admiral maintained its stance on this matter. Unhappy, Mr T came to our Service for a review. Our Investigator didn’t think Admiral had declined the claim unfairly. Mr T disagreed. He provided photos of the key which he believed showed sufficient proof that this was his one and only key. He said if Admiral had taken photos of his key, it would prove the key was used after the date given by the locksmith. The Investigator didn’t change her opinion, so it 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’m aware I’ve set out the background to this complaint in less detail than the parties have presented it. I’m not going to respond to every single point raised. Instead, I’ve focused on what I find are the key issues here. I assure both parties, however, that I’ve read and considered everything they’ve provided.

-- 1 of 3 --

I also want to make clear that under this complaint I’m only considering the issues Mr T raised when he complained and which Admiral responded to in its final response letter. Following our Investigator’s view, Mr T provided photos which he believes support his claim. I’m unable to consider these photos as part of this complaint because Mr T didn’t provide these to Admiral at the time of his claim and complaint, and so it hasn’t had the opportunity to consider this evidence. It’s up to Mr T to provide this evidence to Admiral. If he remains unhappy after that, he can raise a new complaint directly with Admiral. Firstly, it’s important to explain it’s not my role to decide whether Mr T’s claim was false or fraudulent. My role is to assess whether Admiral has acted fairly and reasonably taking into consideration all the evidence available. When it declined Mr T’s claim, Admiral referred to a condition of the policy which says: “General Condition 9: Fraud and Misrepresentation You must always answer our questions honestly and provide true and accurate information. If you, any other insured person, or anyone acting on your behalf, provides: • false, incomplete, exaggerated or misleading information, or • false, altered, forged or stolen documents, we will do one or more of the following things • change your policy to show the correct information and change the premium accordingly • cancel your policy immediately • declare your policy void • refuse to pay any claim or only pay part of a claim • keep the premium you have paid • recover any costs from you or any other insured person • cancel or void any other EUI policies you are connected with”. Mr T has already accepted that he initially provided Admiral with an incorrect key. However, Admiral had concerns about Mr T’s explanation as to how this happened. Having looked at the investigator’s report dated July 2024, I don’t think this was unreasonable. I say this because the report stated their enquiries at the car valeting business didn’t support the account provided by Mr T in respect of the incorrect key that was sent to Admiral. The report said that Mr T’s friend didn’t recall any such event occurring and he wasn’t even able to confirm whether he knew Mr T. The owner of the business stated that it seemed implausible that keys would get mixed up. He said the only keys held on the premises were keys to cars they were working on and he would have known had a customer’s key gone missing. I therefore don’t think it was unreasonable for Admiral to conclude Mr T’s explanation for sending the wrong key wasn’t plausible or supported by any witnesses. Mr T later sent the correct key to Admiral but the key analysis showed discrepancies which Mr T hasn’t been able to explain. I say this because Mr T has said this was his only key but

-- 2 of 3 --

data showed it was last used in March 2021. I’m satisfied that Mr T was made aware of the concerns Admiral had about the circumstances of the incident and subsequent claim. I consider this fair as he needed to have the opportunity to respond to Admiral’s concerns. I can see he responded to the allegations with his explanations. For example, Mr T said that both his friend and the owner of the car valeting business have confirmed to him that the statements provided by the investigator were false. However, Admiral could only base its view on the content of the investigator’s report rather than on comments reported to it by Mr T that can’t be evidenced. I don’t consider it unreasonable for Admiral to rely on the investigator’s report. Mr T also raised concerns about the reported mileage of around 38,000 and provided evidence which he thought proved the key report findings around the mileage were wrong. However, the key report does explain that it isn’t possible for them to establish exactly how many miles of use a key has accounted for in relation to a car’s overall mileage. And that they have to make qualified assumptions in relation to the wear and use of a key. So, I don’t think it unreasonable for Admiral to rely on the key report provided by an independent firm, and to conclude that Mr T didn’t have a factual basis for challenging it. In my opinion, the evidence Admiral gathered from the locksmith and investigator’s reports was strong enough for it to conclude it was more likely than not that the theft didn’t happen as reported by Mr T. So, I think it was reasonable for it to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr T hadn’t adhered to the terms and conditions of his policy. I therefore don’t think Admiral’s decision to decline the claim and cancel the policy on the basis the fraud condition was breached was unfair or unreasonable. So, I won’t ask Admiral to take any further action here. This situation has clearly left Mr T feeling stressed, upset, and financially out of pocket. But I can’t ask Admiral to pay for the claim, given the information provided and what the policy terms state about when a claim could be declined. So, I won’t be asking Admiral to take any further action in response to this complaint. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I don't uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Linda Tare Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --