Not upheld: claim handling - refusal to consider additional damage after settlement agreement complaint against Admiral

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained about Admiral's handling of a windscreen repair claim made in August 2023, alleging the repair caused significant additional damage to his car. Admiral upheld the complaint and paid £50 compensation for communication issues but declined to consider further damage Mr D discovered after signing a full and final settlement agreement with the repairer. Mr D argued the agreement should not apply to internal or latent damage not apparent when signed and that he was pressured into accepting it. The ombudsman found the settlement agreement's wording was clear and covered all claims connected with the dispute, including unknown ones, and that Mr D was given reasonable time and support to consider it without evidence of pressure, making Admiral's refusal to consider further claims fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The settlement agreement contained clear language releasing Admiral from all claims connected with the dispute, whether presently known or not. The wording explicitly covered latent and internal damage. Mr D was given reasonable time (three weeks) to consider the agreement, Admiral offered legal correspondence support, and there was no evidence of pressure or refusal to allow inspection. The ombudsman found the agreement's scope was sufficiently broad to encompass the subsequently discovered damage, making it fair for Admiral to decline further consideration.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website