Not upheld: claims handling / alleged repair defect (tyre substitution) complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs A complained that Admiral's approved repairer replaced her original brand C tyre with a cheaper budget tyre during repairs to her damaged car in February 2025. She discovered the alleged substitution six months later when preparing the car for its MOT and provided pre-accident evidence that all tyres were originally brand C. Admiral rejected the complaint, noting the repairer's invoice contained no tyre charges and the repairer denied replacing any tyres. The ombudsman found the six-month delay in reporting, combined with the lack of date-stamped photographs showing the car's condition when returned and the absence of tyre replacement charges, meant there was insufficient evidence to conclude the repairer was responsible for the alleged swap.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that if a tyre swap had occurred, it would constitute a loss to Mrs A. However, the key issue was whether the swap occurred while the car was in the repairer's control. The six-month delay between repair and complaint was critical because it meant any inspection could not determine when the tyre was fitted, making it impossible to rule out independent changes. The absence of date-stamped photographs showing the car's condition when returned, combined with no charges for tyre replacement on the invoice and the repairer's denial of replacing tyres, meant there was insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to conclude the repairer was responsible.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website