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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B claimed under his motor insurance policy with Admiral following a road traffic accident in October 2024. After collecting his repaired car in December 2024, he discovered multiple faults including a faulty heater, front camera, and cruise control. Admiral's repairs were delayed significantly, with parts not arriving until May 2025, and Mr B had to repeatedly chase for updates. Admiral upheld the complaint and paid £200 for distress and inconvenience plus £570 for loss of use during the period when the car lacked heating. The ombudsman found that while Admiral had service failings, the delays were partly unavoidable due to national parts shortages, and the compensation already paid was fair and reasonable, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that Admiral had service failings and caused distress and inconvenience, but found that some delays were inevitable due to national parts shortages and the investigation required to determine if faults were accident-related. The ombudsman determined that the £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience was fair and proportionate, and that the £570 loss of use payment was appropriate for the period when the car lacked heating and was undriveable. The ombudsman distinguished between loss of use (when a car cannot be driven safely) and mere inconvenience (when some features don't work but the car remains driveable), finding that the cruise control and front camera faults amounted to inconvenience rather than loss of use.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website