DRN-6067652

The complaint Mr J complains about the way his motor insurer, Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (‘Admiral’) dealt with a claim he made on his policy and the valuation it placed on his vehicle after it was stolen and not recovered. What happened In July 2025, Mr J’s car was stolen whilst in a car park and never recovered. He made a claim on his policy with Admiral who assessed the pre-accident value at £23,282, something Mr J wasn’t happy about. Mr J complained to Admiral and said it had failed to take into account optional extras when assessing the market value. He also thought that Admiral should only be looking at cars sold by dealerships and not anyone else as this was the “market” from which Mr J had bought his car. If Admiral wasn’t able to do this, then he said he considered that the policy had been mis-sold. He raised some additional issues such as the fact that charging cables were also taken and were expensive to replace and the fact that he had to spend money on transport whilst being without a car. Admiral reviewed the complaint and upheld it in part. It issued two separate responses but they both addressed mainly the same issues. It said it relied on recognised valuation guides in reaching its valuation and that the “market” value wasn’t restricted only to sales prices of cars sold by main dealers. It didn’t consider that this meant the policy had been mis-sold. It added that the policy didn’t provide a courtesy car in the event of the car not being repairable, so it wouldn’t be able to reimburse Mr J’s transport costs. It offered Mr J £50 compensation for not explaining that it would consider the cost of the charging cables separately to the valuation. Unhappy with Admiral’s response, Mr J brought his complaint to our service. He said he wanted a valuation based on main dealer prices and for the valuation to take into account his car’s optional extras. One of our investigators reviewed the complaint and thought that Admiral should increase its offer to £24,000 based on valuations it obtained from the guides. Our investigator didn’t consider that the “market” was restricted to main dealers but to cars sold in the UK. Admiral didn’t agree and asked for an ombudsman’s decision. It said that its offer was very close to the highest valuation obtained using the guides and was therefore fair and reasonable. The matter was then passed to me to decide.

-- 1 of 3 --

What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I understand that the complaint about the charging cables has now been resolved so I will not be considering it in my decision. The valuation Like most motor insurance policies, Mr J’s provides cover in the event there is loss of or damage to his car due to accident, fire or theft. The policy states that the most Admiral will pay is the market value of the vehicle. The policy defines “market value” as: “The cost of replacing your vehicle; with one of a similar make, model, year, mileage and condition based on market prices immediately before the loss happened. Use of the term “market” refers to where your vehicle was purchased. The value is based on research from industry recognised motor trade guides”. Our service has an approach to valuation cases like Mr J’s that has evolved in recent times. When looking at the valuation placed on a car by an insurance company, I consider the approach it has adopted and decide whether the valuation is fair in all the circumstances. Our service doesn’t value cars. Instead, we check to see that the insurer’s valuation is fair and reasonable and in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. To do this we tend to use relevant valuation guides. I usually find these persuasive as they’re based on nationwide sales prices. Admiral relied on three valuation guides, which returned figures of £22,370, £24,000 and £23,476. I also considered the valuations obtained by our investigator using the same plus an additional guide. These produced figures of £22,950, £23,750, £23,553 and £23,760. Taken together, the valuations sit within a reasonably consistent range, and I am satisfied they all relate to the same vehicle. Furthermore, none appears to be an outlier. Admiral assessed the car at £23,282, which appears to be the average of the valuations it obtained from the guides. Admiral said that its offer was only 2.99% lower than the highest valuation and was therefore fair and reasonable. Admiral provided a list of cars advertised on a specific website in support of its valuation being fair. It highlighted two specific adverts with cars which were both a year younger than Mr J’s and which had slightly lower mileage. One was advertised for £24,993 - noted as a “good” price” by the specific site- and the other for £23,169, a price noted by the site as being “low”. Bearing in mind the adverts were for two cars of the same age and almost identical mileage I thought the variation in advertised price was significant and isn’t helpful evidence, in my view, in determining whether Admiral’s valuation was fair. So, though helpful, I didn’t find this evidence as persuasive as the guides. Even if I were to find it persuasive, bearing in mind the lower price was noted as being “low”, I would say that a more fair valuation would be

-- 2 of 3 --

closer to the £24,993 advert. So, looking at all the evidence including the valuations produced by the guides I’m not persuaded that Admiral’s offer is fair. Given that there isn’t any other evidence to persuade me that a valuation in line with the higher valuations produced is inappropriate and to avoid any detriment to Mr J, the highest valuation produced by the guides is my starting point. And considering the overall variation of the values produced I consider that £24,000 is a fair valuation. I understand that Mr J has now agreed with this valuation so I will not go on to consider his point about additional extras though as pointed out by our investigator, the evidence he provided didn’t indicate that the metallic paint and floor mats were things Mr J had to pay extra for. Mr J’s other complaint points Mr J believes that the “market” from which he bought his car was that of main dealerships because they provide additional benefits such as warranties etc. He said that when reaching a fair valuation, Admiral should have only searched for cars offered for sale by main dealerships. As our investigator explained it is widely accepted that “market” refers to the geographical location for example the UK, not necessarily whether the car was purchased from a dealer or an auction. But in any event, I think it was fair and reasonable that Admiral consulted the guides in reaching a valuation and this is in line with our established approach. Mr J also said he incurred travel costs due to being without his car. I appreciate this will have been frustrating for him, but as his policy doesn’t provide for a courtesy car in the event of the car being stolen, I don’t think Admiral is responsible for those costs. And I can’t see any unreasonable delays on Admiral’s behalf which might necessitate making such an award in any event. My final decision For the reasons above, I have decided to uphold this complaint. Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited must settle Mr J’s claim based on a valuation of £24,000. It must, therefore, pay him an additional £718. It must also pay 8% simple interest per year on this amount from the date of its interim payment offer to the date it pays him. If Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr J how much it’s taken off. It should also give Mr J a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 12 May 2026. Anastasia Serdari Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --