Partially upheld: misinformation on claim approval and unfair claim handling complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6235242 of 2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00. misinformation on claim approval and unfair claim handling complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6235242 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | misinformation on claim approval and unfair claim handling |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited to pay Miss H £90 further compensation (£150 in total) for distress and inconvenience caused by its level of service, as already agreed. Admiral to consider Miss H's policy entitlement for private replacement costs (up to £50 for glass replacement less excess) if she wishes to proceed with a claim and withdraws the original claim. |
Summary
Miss H complained that Admiral Insurance misinformed her about approval for manufacturer's glass replacement on her motor insurance claim, then later refused to provide it without additional payment. Admiral admitted the misinformation and paid £60 compensation, but Miss H sought £300 and wanted Admiral to honour the verbal agreement. The ombudsman found Admiral acted within policy terms by offering non-manufacturer's glass of similar quality and rejected the claim that Admiral should honour the incorrect verbal agreement. However, the complaint was upheld in part, with the ombudsman upholding Admiral's agreement to pay £150 total compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the misinformation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Admiral acted within its policy terms by using non-manufacturer's glass of similar standard and quality, as no expert evidence showed the replacement glass was of inferior standard. However, Admiral's repeated misinformation to Miss H about approval for manufacturer's glass constituted an error that caused loss of expectation and frustration. While consumers should not benefit from insurer mistakes, the insurer must compensate for the impact of errors. The ombudsman found £150 compensation appropriate under FOS guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused, and rejected Miss H's claim that Admiral should honour the incorrect verbal agreement or pay £300 compensation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited, all decisions | 1,925 | 44% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 23,874 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website