Upheld: claim valuation dispute and poor service in claims handling complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D claimed on his motor insurance policy after his 2018 car was stolen on 22 June 2025. Admiral offered £28,611 based on trade guide valuations, but Mr D believed the car was worth over £40,000 and complained about the low valuation and poor service during the three-month claims process. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding that Mr D's comparable car adverts (particularly one priced at £35,975 with similar mileage) provided persuasive evidence that the market value exceeded Admiral's offer, and required Admiral to pay the difference plus interest and additional compensation. However, the ombudsman rejected Mr D's claims for transport costs and found that most of the three-month delay was unavoidable due to the nature of theft claims.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while trade guides are generally reliable, in this case the scarcity of comparable low-mileage 2018 vehicles meant that Mr D's adverts were persuasive evidence that the market value exceeded the top guide price. The closest comparable car Mr D found (£35,975 with only 4,000 more mileage) was more reliable evidence than Admiral's examples which had considerably higher mileage. Regarding service, while the three-month delay was difficult for Mr D's family, most of the delay was unavoidable due to the nature of theft claims and the need for external investigators. The policy clearly excluded courtesy vehicles for theft claims, and Admiral's compensation offer of £320 total was reasonable for the service shortfalls that did occur.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website