Upheld: poor claims handling, inadequate customer service, failure to respond to queries, unjustified cost reductions complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained about Admiral's handling of a car insurance claim following a May 2023 accident. After two failed repair attempts, Admiral authorised rectification work but reduced the garage's quote from £5,518.19 to £5,136.19 without adequate justification and did not respond to queries about this reduction. Miss M wanted to sell the car before her December 2023 policy renewal to avoid increased premiums, but was unable to due to outstanding repairs. The ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding poor claims handling and service failures, awarding £750 compensation and directing Admiral to pay full current repair costs. However, the ombudsman rejected Miss M's claim for financial losses from inability to sell the car, finding she did not adequately mitigate her losses and had sufficient time and financial means to address the repair shortfall.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding claims handling and service failures, finding that Admiral did not deal with the claim promptly and fairly as required by FCA rules. However, the ombudsman rejected Miss M's claim for financial losses from inability to sell the car, finding that Miss M did not adequately mitigate her losses. Although Admiral was partly responsible for delays due to failed repair attempts, there was sufficient time from mid-September 2023 to December 2023 for Miss M to obtain a quote and complete repairs before her renewal. The three-month delay in submitting the quote was Miss M's responsibility. Regarding the £382 shortfall in authorisation, the ombudsman found Miss M had sufficient disposable income to cover this cost. Even accepting the larger £1,000 difference Miss M later identified, plus the disputed excess of £500, the ombudsman found Miss M could have afforded this or alternatively sold the car without repairs being completed, which would have resulted in lower losses than claimed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website