Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6218248

The complaint Mr G is unhappy with how Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited dealt with a claim on his travel insurance policy. What happened Mr G has a travel insurance policy underwritten by Admiral. He was booked on to a running event, but unfortunately, he broke his foot five days before he was due to travel. So he had to cancel the race and his pre-booked travel arrangements. Mr G submitted a claim under his policy to recover the costs, but he is unhappy with how Admiral handled things. He has explained he told them he had severe depression and he still received poor customer service. Mr G referred a complaint to this service. Our investigator looked at what had happened and said he didn’t think Admiral had treated Mr G unfairly. Mr G disagreed and asked for an ombudsman to review the case. In summary he said: • Admiral had breached the Consumer Duty and the Fair Treatment of Vulnerable Consumers FCA guidance. • The information about excess wasn’t in large enough font or highlighted in a way that a consumer with a diagnosed vitreous detachment can reasonably read. He had declared his condition during his medical screening so Admiral should have known they needed to make adjustments for him. • He was unhappy with the way Admiral kept referring to missing evidence when he had already explained how things had been purchased The case has been passed to me to make 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. I may not respond to every point that has been raised, but I want to reassure both parties that I’ve considered everything that’s been submitted. The informal nature of this service enables me to do that so I can resolve complaints with minimal formality. The relevant rules and industry guidelines say Admiral has a responsibility to handle claims promptly and fairly. And they shouldn’t reject a claim unreasonably. Mr G has referenced Consumer Duty and I’ve taken that into account when deciding what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case. Having done so, I’m not upholding this case. I’ll explain why. Excess

-- 1 of 3 --

It’s not in dispute that Mr G’s policy documents set out that a separate excess is charged per person. It isn’t unusual for a travel policy to charge a separate excess for each person claiming so I don’t think this means Mr G’s policy didn’t provide fair value on that basis. Mr G is unhappy that the wording was in small print and not highlighted. He’s explained due to his eye condition he didn’t see this and he doesn’t think that is fair. Mr G declared his condition during his medical screening, so he thinks Admiral should have taken account of this and presented their communication differently to him. I appreciate Mr G’s point of view here, but I don’t think that is a reasonable expectation in the circumstances of this case. If Mr G was unable to review his policy documentation, he should have let Admiral know there was a problem at the time he received it, so they had the opportunity to help rectify it. It doesn’t appear Mr G ever explicitly told Admiral he required adjustments to the font size they used. I don’t think the declaration of a medical condition alone is enough to have reasonably made Admiral aware Mr G required adjustments. The same condition may require different adjustments for different people, so I wouldn’t expect Admiral to just make assumptions as to what requirements their customers need. I’m also mindful that Admiral have shown that Mr G answered ‘not needed’ on his claim form when they asked if he had any additional support needs or accessibility requirements when making the claim. Mr G has said the excess information was also hidden within the policy terms but I’m satisfied that information was adequately disclosed by Admiral in several pieces of documentation. Taking everything into account, I think Admiral provided the relevant information about the policy in a clear, fair and non-misleading way, in the absence of knowing Mr G needed any adjustments to the font size. Requests for evidence Mr G found Admiral’s request for evidence onerous, especially as he’d taken the time to explain how his train tickets had been purchased. But I don’t think Admiral’s requests were unreasonable or disproportionate. I’ll explain why. In Admiral’s initial request to Mr G, they asked for certain pieces of information, and explained why they needed it and what the evidence needed to show. In their follow up email, they acknowledged what Mr G had already sent and explained why this was or wasn’t adequate, and what else they still needed. I appreciate this may have been frustrating for Mr G to hear but I still think it was reasonable for them to need to validate the claim further at this stage. Admiral then went on to call Mr G to confirm that some of the information wasn’t exactly what they’d asked for, but they were willing to accept it based on the explanations he had provided. I think this was a fair approach for them to take in the circumstances. Having reviewed everything, overall, I don’t think the information Admiral asked Mr G for was unreasonable. I think it was fair for them to need specific evidence, names and dates in order to validate the claim, and I think they communicated with him clearly on this.

-- 2 of 3 --

Conclusion Taking everything into account I don’t think Admiral treated Mr G unfairly. While I appreciate this will be disappointing, there isn’t anything further I could reasonably ask Admiral to do here. My final decision For the reasons set out above I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Georgina Gill Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --