Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6137419

The complaint Mr F complains that Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (“Admiral”) mishandled a claim on a motor insurance policy. What happened The subject matter of the insurance, the claim and the complaint is a car, first registered in 2006. Mr F acquired the car in March 2025. For the year from late March 2025, Mr F had the car insured on a comprehensive policy with Admiral. Unfortunately, Mr F reported to Admiral that in early August 2025, he’d been driving the car behind a third party’s vehicle when there was an incident between them. During the first call, Admiral said that Mr F was liable and it would record a fault claim against him. Mr F complained to Admiral about its decision on liability and about failing to send all correspondence via email as he had asked. By a final response dated 23 September 2025, Admiral turned down the complaint about liability. However, Admiral accepted it had failed to adhere to Mr F’s request to send all correspondence by email. It apologised for its poor service and said it would send a cheque for £100.00 compensation if Mr F provided an updated address. Mr F brought his complaint to us in late September 2025. Our investigator recommended that Admiral had already offered a reasonable resolution to the complaint. Mr F disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. He asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. He says, in summary, that: • In the first call, he reported to Admiral that he’d been following the third party uphill in slow-moving traffic at a green traffic light when the third party vehicle slammed on their brakes for no clear reason. • In the first call to Admiral, he said he wasn't even sure whether there was any contact at all. He said there was no visible damage to either vehicle. • Admiral never gave him the opportunity to make a full written statement. • After their apology and offer, Admiral repeated the mistake of sending letters. 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

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, a 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 the addition of more recent complaint points. If that happens, then the rule allows us to investigate the initial complaint, but we can’t deal with the additional points in the same investigation. In Mr F’s case, I consider that our investigator was correct not to investigate Mr F’s later complaint points about communications from Admiral after its final response. I don’t consider that I can make any findings on those complaint points in this decision. This decision Admiral’s policy terms included one allowing it to conduct the investigation, defence and settlement of any claim on behalf of its policyholder. The effect of that term was that, on a question of how best to deal with a claim involving a third party, Admiral’s view would prevail over its policyholder’s view. That’s not uncommon in motor insurance. I will consider whether Admiral applied that term fairly in Mr F’s case. Unlike a court, we don’t hear evidence form each driver and decide the extent to which each of them is responsible for causing injury or loss. In the absence of a recording of the first call, I accept that Mr F reported the incident in the way he still reports it. I’m satisfied that Admiral took into account Mr F’s report of the incident. Nevertheless, Admiral had in mind the relevant provisions of the Highway Code about keeping a safe distance behind the car in front so as to be able to stop unexpectedly. Admiral considered that this applied at all times including when driving uphill – and I don’t find that unreasonable. I don’t consider that Admiral had to accept Mr F’s view that it wasn’t his fault that there wasn’t much gap between him and the car in front. And I don’t consider that Admiral had to accept Mr F’s view that he hadn’t touched the third party’s vehicle or caused any damage. Rather, Admiral was entitled to use its experience and judgment to assess the prospects of successfully defending Mr F’s position based on what he had reported. In the circumstances, I don’t consider that its decision not to ask for a written statement made any difference to the outcome. I don’t consider that Admiral treated Mr F unfairly by making an early decision that the prospects of success were very poor. So Admiral decided that, if the third party made a claim for damage to the rear of their vehicle, Admiral would settle any reasonable claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

Admiral decided not to incur the cost and risk of court proceedings. Rather it decided to accept that Mr F was at fault for the accident. I’m satisfied that Admiral acted reasonably and proportionately in weighing up the relevant evidence and making a reasonable decision based on the evidence. So I don’t find it fair and reasonable to direct Admiral to change the way it has settled and recoded the claim. I’ve thought about Admiral’s failure to follow (before the final response) Mr F’s expressed preference for communication only by email. I’ve also thought about the impact of that on him. From what he says, he found it inconvenient and frustrating because of a change of address and because of relationship issues. So I accept that Admiral’s shortcomings in communication (before the final response) caused Mr F some distress and/or inconvenience and required some additional effort to put right. Putting things right I’ve weighed up the nature and duration of that distress and inconvenience at an already difficult time for Mr F. I’ve also noted that Admiral acted promptly to make an offer to try to put things right. Overall I conclude that Admiral’s final response offer was fair and in line with our published guidelines for compensation for distress and inconvenience. As I don’t think Mr F has received payment, I will uphold this complaint and direct Admiral to pay him insofar as it hadn’t already done so. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. I direct Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited to pay Mr F, insofar as it hasn’t already paid him, £100.00 for distress and inconvenience. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --