Partially upheld: unfair claims handling; failure to respect customer instructions; inadequate consideration of vulnerability complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained about Admiral's claims handling following a June 2025 collision where he had agreed with the third party to settle privately. Mr B contacted Admiral on a 'notification only' basis to inform it of the incident, but Admiral subsequently contacted the third party and took over the claim, resulting in repairs costing £772.56 (significantly more than Mr B's estimated £20-£180). This caused the claim to be recorded as 'fault' against Mr B, reducing his NCD and leading to a tripled renewal premium. The ombudsman found Admiral prejudiced Mr B's position by not respecting his wishes and failing to adequately explain the consequences to an inexperienced, financially vulnerable customer. While the ombudsman concluded Mr B would likely have struggled to afford the repairs anyway, Admiral's handling caused distress and inconvenience warranting £200 compensation, though the claim record and NCD reduction were not reversed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Admiral acted within its policy wording and contractual rights to handle the claim as it saw fit, the ombudsman found that Admiral prejudiced Mr B's position by contacting the third party despite his clear 'notification only' request. The ombudsman noted that Admiral repeatedly assured Mr B he could settle privately while simultaneously telling him it would contact the third party, which brought the claim against him. Given Mr B's signposted vulnerability (inexperience with claims, employment difficulties, financial constraints), Admiral should have been clearer about the consequences of its actions. Although the ombudsman acknowledged Mr B likely would have struggled to afford the full repair costs anyway due to affordability issues, Admiral's failure to fully explain its actions and consider Mr B's wishes caused him distress and inconvenience. The ombudsman rejected Mr B's requests to remove the claim and reinstate NCD as the outcome would likely have been the same given his financial position.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website