Not upheld: missed payment handling and default notice communication complaint against EUI Limited trading as Admiral

Decision detail

Summary

Ms E complained about how Admiral handled a missed insurance payment and the subsequent default notice. A payment due on 31 December 2025 was rejected, and Admiral sent a letter on 3 January warning of a default notice on 6 January. Ms E called on 6 January to arrange payment for 9 January, but Admiral sent the default notice as planned, causing her distress and concern about her credit score. The ombudsman found that Admiral's default notice was a lawful warning letter required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, not an actual default recording, and confirmed that no default had been recorded on Ms E's credit file. The complaint was not upheld as the communications were clear and compliant with legal requirements.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman distinguished between a default notice (a warning letter required by law) and an actual default (recording on credit file). Admiral's letters were clear in their wording and complied with CCA 1974 requirements to give 14 days' notice. Although there was some confusion caused by the overlap between the letter and Ms E's phone call, the communications were not unreasonable. Crucially, no default was actually recorded on Ms E's credit file, so the harm she worried about did not materialise. The ombudsman could not take into account worries about what may have happened but did not actually occur.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website