Upheld: claims handling; failure to consider vulnerability; service failures in processing theft claim complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained about Admiral's handling of his vehicle theft claim, alleging serious service failings including cancelling his policy without clear consent, failing to send promised compound details, making excessive information requests, and not considering his post-traumatic stress disorder and vulnerability. Admiral partly upheld his complaints and offered £300 compensation, but Mr S disputed this was adequate. The ombudsman found that while some of Mr S's recollections were inaccurate and certain actions were not errors, Admiral failed to adequately account for his disability and vulnerability in its handling and compensation decision. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Admiral to pay £500 total compensation, recognising that the impact of Admiral's errors was significantly greater on Mr S than on an average consumer due to his particular circumstances.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while some of Mr S's recollections were inaccurate (e.g., the cancellation was mentioned in the call, though briefly), Admiral made genuine service errors including failing to send the promised email with compound details and failing to escalate to a manager promptly. The key issue was that Admiral did not adequately take into account Mr S's disability and vulnerability when handling his claim and determining compensation. Although Admiral corrected the error of not providing compound details within one day, and processed the claim relatively quickly (within three weeks), the ombudsman concluded that the impact of Admiral's errors was significantly greater on Mr S than on an average consumer due to his particular circumstances. The ombudsman rejected arguments that Admiral was not responsible for subsequent events or that the medical evidence changed the outcome, but found that Admiral's failure to recognise and account for Mr S's vulnerability meant he felt his disability was dismissed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website