Veste

Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6335031 of 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00. Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6335031
Decision date2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00
FirmAdmiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited
ProductHome insurance
Claim typeHome insurance claim disputes
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo additional remedy ordered. The £300 compensation already paid by Admiral was deemed fair and reasonable.

Summary

Mr S claimed on his home insurance policy for fire damage to his garden fence in May 2025. Admiral settled the claim for £1,338.58 minus the £350 policy excess, paying £988.58. Mr S disputed this, claiming Admiral had agreed to waive the excess and alleging poor handling, bullying, and discriminatory treatment. Admiral accepted their communication could have been better and paid £300 compensation but maintained the excess was correctly applied. The ombudsman found no persuasive evidence that Admiral had agreed to waive the excess, found no evidence of discrimination or unfair treatment, and determined the £300 compensation was fair and reasonable, thus not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy clearly included a £350 excess and Admiral had informed Mr S of this on several occasions. While Mr S claimed he was told over the phone the excess would be waived, no persuasive evidence supported this assertion. The ombudsman accepted Admiral's own assessment that their communications could have been clearer but found no evidence of discrimination, bullying, or deliberate hostility. The £300 compensation already paid was deemed sufficient to address the communication failings.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited, all decisions1,95643%
Home insurance claim disputes, all decisions25,67038%
Home insurance, all decisions20,95938%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website