Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6182164 of 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6182164 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | Motor insurance, claim handling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Admiral should acknowledge their error in characterising the NCB allowance as a gesture of goodwill. Admiral should engage with Mrs B regarding her documentation request of 26 October 2025, providing personal information she is entitled to while respecting Data Protection Act obligations regarding third-party information. The £25 compensation already paid for lack of courtesy call is deemed fair and sufficient. |
Summary
Mrs B complained about Admiral's handling of a car insurance claim following an accident involving her named driver in March 2024. The main issues were: Admiral's decision to settle on 50/50 split liability without consulting her, rejection of passenger witness statements as non-independent, characterisation of her NCB protection as a 'gesture of goodwill' rather than her entitlement, and failure to provide requested documentation. The ombudsman found Admiral acted fairly and reasonably in settling the claim given contradictory accounts and lack of independent evidence, and that the £25 compensation for lack of a courtesy call was appropriate. While Admiral should acknowledge their error regarding the NCB characterisation and engage with the documentation request, the complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Admiral was entitled to settle the claim under standard motor insurance policy conditions and did so on reasonable terms given the circumstances. With contradictory accounts from both parties and no independent witnesses or corroborating evidence such as CCTV, a 50/50 split liability settlement represented the best possible terms available. Mrs B had opportunities to provide evidence earlier in the claims process rather than only after the settlement decision. Admiral's refusal to accept statements from passengers was reasonable given their relationship to the named driver. The £25 compensation for lack of a courtesy call was appropriate. Regarding the NCB, while Admiral's characterisation as a 'gesture of goodwill' was incorrect given Mrs B's paid protection, this did not warrant additional compensation as the claim would have progressed identically. Admiral should engage with Mrs B's documentation request but cannot provide third-party information due to Data Protection Act obligations.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited, all decisions | 1,956 | 43% |
| Motor insurance, claim handling, all decisions | 12,937 | 32% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 24,103 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website