DRN-6141151

The complaint Mr G complains about the way Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (Admiral) handled a claim he made under his home insurance policy. Any references to Admiral within this decision include the actions of its agents for which it is responsible for. What happened The circumstances of this complaint will be well known to both parties and so I’ve summarised events. In December 2022 Mr G became aware copper pipes had been stolen from his newly purchased property, resulting in an oil leak. He reported a claim to Admiral under his building insurance policy. Admiral accepted Mr G’s claim and carried out structural and foundation repairs. It then paid Mr G a cash settlement for the internal reinstatement works. Mr G wasn’t happy with the settlement he had been offered, nor the way his claim and alternative accommodation arrangements had been handled and so raised a complaint. On 6 January 2025 Admiral issued Mr G with a final response to his complaint. It said it would pay Mr G £650 compensation and £74.71 interest due to the way it handled his claim and alternative accommodation payments. Mr G didn’t think this was reasonable and so referred his complaint to this Service. I issued a final decision about that complaint requiring Admiral to pay Mr G an additional settlement for easing and adjusting doors, replacing curtains and carrying out an anti- fungicidal wash to all surfaces. Admiral was also required to pay a further two months alternative accommodation alongside interest on the additional amounts due. That decision was accepted by Mr G. In the meantime, Mr G had raised a further complaint with Admiral in relation to additional damage he said it caused to his property and the way it had handled his claim. On 1 October 2025 Admiral issued Mr G with a final response to his complaint. This response was detailed but in summary it said it had upheld Mr G’s complaint in part and had paid £300 compensation. Mr G referred his complaint to this Service. Our Investigator looked into things but didn’t think Admiral needed to do anything further. Mr G disagreed with our Investigator. He provided a detailed response but in summary he said: • A snagging meeting was agreed but never delivered on. This has meant Admiral has been able to conceal known damage to the property • Admiral's contractors blocked his drains. As no snagging meeting was carried out, Admiral hasn't been able to evidence the drains were in working order following repairs from its contractors.

-- 1 of 5 --

• There was a leak in the loft caused by the insured event which was dismissed by Admiral as age-related. The leak caused long lasting damp in the loft and degradation of the insulation and boarding. • Comments made by Admiral's loss adjustor about him possibly meet the threshold for breaking the law under the Defamation Act 2013. • The compensation paid by Admiral is not reasonable for the financial stress and hardship caused by Admiral's handling of the claim. This also doesn't take into consideration the three years of interest on credit card bills and the cost of delays to work. As an agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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 want to acknowledge I’ve summarised Mr G’s complaint in far less detail than he’s presented it. I’ve not commented on every point he has raised. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be the key points I need to think about. I mean no discourtesy by this, but it simply reflects the informal nature of this Service. I assure Mr G and Admiral I’ve read and considered everything that’s been provided. I also want to be clear about what I’ve considered as part of this decision. I’ve previously issued a final decision following Admiral’s final response of 6 January 2025. So, I won’t be commenting on anything previously considered by this Service. This decision will focus on the events which have taken place following Admiral’s final response of 6 January 2025, or which have been specifically responded to by Admiral within its final response of 1 October 2025. I’ve addressed the key points separately. Loft Damage Mr G has said damage has been caused to the pipework, insulation and plasterboard in his loft. He has said: • The pipes in the loft were damaged by the insured event which caused an escape of water. Admiral failed to investigate this appropriately. • Damage was caused to the pipework due to Admiral failing to put in place frost protection over the two winter periods it was in control of the property. • Further water damage was caused due to Admiral refilling the heating system and not making him aware of damage to the pipework identified during the appraisal of the boiler in May 2024. So, I’ve considered the available evidence to decide whether I think Admiral are responsible for the damage Mr G has said has occurred. Based on the evidence provided, I’m not persuaded the pipework in the loft was damaged during the insured event. Mr G provided Admiral with an estimate dated 21 December 2022, three days after the recorded incident. In this estimate the contractor has included work to replace frost damage

-- 2 of 5 --

pipes. And Admiral has said when it first attended Mr G’s property in January 2023, there was no evidence of pipes having been removed from the loft. I’m also aware Mr G’s property had been unoccupied for some time prior to him purchasing it, and the theft which took place. Taking all of this into consideration I think it’s more likely than not any damage to the pipework in the loft was pre-existing rather than being caused during the theft. I’m also not persuaded it’s been shown there was an escape of water caused by the insured event. In the estimate Mr G has provided dated 21 December 2022, the contractor makes no mention of an escape of water or any repairs related to this. I think had there been water damage at this stage, it more likely than not would have been identified by Mr G’s contractor. Admiral has also provided photographs of Mr G’s property from September 2023, and these don’t appear to show any evidence of water damage to the loft space. Mr G has said damage was caused to the pipework due to Admiral failing to put in place frost protection over the two winter periods it was in control of the property. As I’ve already said, I think the evidence suggests there was pre-existing damage to the pipework at the property. In any event, the evidence provided suggests the heating system had been drained down. The photographs from September 2023 show the header tanks were dry and the engineer who visited in May 2024 said there wasn’t sufficient water to run the boiler. Additionally, Mr G’s contractor said part of the heating system had been drained down. So, I think it’s more likely than not the system had been drained and the pipes bursting due to cold weather would have been unlikely even if the property wasn’t being heated. Mr G has said Admiral’s engineer filled the system in May 2024 to test the boiler, which has then resulted in further water damage. He has said he wasn’t provided with information about the damaged pipes to allow him to prevent further damage. Following Mr G’s property being returned to him and his contractor, I can’t see he highlighted the water damage to Admiral until several months later. Mr G’s contractor provided a document dated 2 May 2025 in which they said: ‘When we turned the heating on we found a lot of frost damage pipes. Although the heating had been drained down, there had been lying water in the pipes in the attic areas. This then caused a problem with the insulation getting wet. This then had to be removed and replaced.’ This would suggest the subsequent water damage Mr G has highlighted was caused when his own contractor turned on the heating system and not when it was still in Admiral’s possession. Whilst Mr G has said he wasn’t made aware of the leaks to the pipework, the contractor was the same one who provided an estimate in 2022 highlighting frost damage pipes. And I’ve not seen anything to suggest Admiral gave Mr G the impression it had carried out any repairs to the pipework in the meantime. So overall, I’m not persuaded water damage was caused whilst the property was in Admiral’s possession. Nor do I think it would be fair to hold it responsible for damage which appears to have taken place following it returning the property to Mr G and his contractor around September 2024. Mould Damage Mr G has provided an estimate from his own contractor from February 2026 which includes mould related repairs, including hiring of dehumidifiers, replacement of damaged plasterboard and application of an anti-fungal sealer.

-- 3 of 5 --

As part of the previous decision, Admiral was required to pay a settlement toward an anti- fungicidal wash to all surfaces. This was included as part of Mr G’s challenge of the settlement Admiral had paid for repairs. So, it would appear the further repairs Mr G would like Admiral to pay for are as a result of the water damage Mr G holds Admiral responsible for. As I’ve explained, I’m not persuaded Admiral caused or are required to resolve the water related damage Mr G has said has been caused. It follows that I also don’t think it is required to pay for any repairs to mould related repairs caused as a result of this. Blocked Drains Mr G has said Admiral caused a blockage of his drains which he had to pay to resolve. He has said as no snagging meeting was carried out, Admiral hasn’t demonstrated the drains were in a working condition following repairs by its contractors. Mr G has provided an estimate from his own contractor from February 2026 in which the contractor has said it located a blockage which couldn’t be cleared with drain rods. This meant it had to dig down, cut out the old pipe and replace it. However, the estimate doesn’t provide any detail about what caused the blockage, nor when it was likely to have occurred. I also can’t see this was highlighted to Admiral until a number of months following the property being returned to Mr G. I think it’s also worth noting that Mr G didn’t live in the property prior to the insured incident taking place. So, it’s possible the drains were already blocked and Mr G wouldn’t have been aware of this. Without any information about the cause of the blockage or when it occurred, it wouldn’t be fair to conclude this was caused by Admiral and that it needs to put this right. Claim handling Admiral has acknowledged it made errors during the handling of Mr G’s claim and complaint which included delays and the way in which its loss adjustor spoke about him. It has paid £300 compensation. So, I’ve considered whether I think this is reasonable to acknowledge the impact to Mr G. I don’t intend to list and comment on every error Mr G has said Admiral has made given this Service is an informal one. But I think it is appropriate to comment on some of the specific points Mr G has made. Admiral has acknowledged comments made by its loss adjustor during internal telephone calls were unprofessional. Mr G has said he believes the comments possibly meet the threshold for breaking the law under the Defamation Act 2013. It isn’t the role of this Service to decide whether the loss adjustor’s comments breached the relevant laws as this would be the responsibility of the courts. However, I can consider the impact these comments had on Mr G. It understandably would have been upsetting for Mr G to have learned of the unprofessional comments made by Admiral’s loss adjustor, and I acknowledge this caused him concern about how his claim had been handled. However, I’ve not seen persuasive evidence the comments made impacted the overall way in which his claim was handled or caused him a specific loss beyond the distress of becoming aware of them. I know Mr G is particularly unhappy with alterations made to the boiler appraisal report from

-- 4 of 5 --

May 2024. As part of the previous decision I issued, I did acknowledge Mr G had concerns about this report but that I thought Admiral was reasonable to rely on it. So, I don’t consider it appropriate to comment on this report again as part of this more recent decision. Mr G is unhappy a snagging meeting was offered by Admiral but not completed. Admiral has said it had a number of meetings with Mr G and his own contractor so there were opportunities for Mr G to bring up issues if necessary. Ultimately, I think a snagging meeting should have taken place, particularly if requested by Mr G. However, I think Mr G has had the opportunity to raise any issues he experienced with the repairs carried out by Admiral and so I can’t say he has suffered a specific loss due to a snagging meeting not being carried out. This has been a complex claim lasting over a significant period of time and so naturally I think Mr G would have experienced a great deal of distress and inconvenience, regardless of any errors Admiral may have made. However, when taking into consideration the errors I hold Admiral responsible for and which form part of this decision, I think the £300 compensation it has paid is reasonable in all of the circumstances. My final decision For the reasons I’ve outlined above I don’t uphold Mr G’s complaint about Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Andrew Clarke Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --