DRN-6189141

The complaint Ms C and Mr C complain that Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (“Admiral”) mishandled a refund in connection with a motor insurance policy. What happened Ms C had a car that had first been registered in 2012. She had a motor insurance policy with Admiral to cover the car for the year from mid-April 2025. The policy covered Ms C as policyholder. The policy also covered Mr C and another family member as named drivers. The policy schedule said that Ms C had three years’ no-claims bonus (“NCB”). The cost of cover for the year was going to be £793.49. On about 17 April 2025, Mr C paid that amount to Admiral on a card issued by his building society. By a letter dated 24 May 2025, Admiral told Ms C it had reduced her NCB to zero years, so it asked her to pay an additional sum of about £190.00. By a letter dated 15 August 2925, Admiral told Ms C it had cancelled the policy with effect from 14 August 2025. Admiral said the following: “We will refund the payment to the method used to pay the majority of the premium…” On about 16 August 2025, Admiral initiated a refund of £398.47 to a building society card ending 0401. Admiral later said that the building society rejected the refund, so Admiral cancelled it and issued a cheque for £398.47. Admiral said that the building society said it had not rejected the payment, so Admiral cancelled the cheque. In October 2025, Mr C complained to Admiral that he had yet to receive the refund. By a final response dated 13 October 2025, Admriall turned down the complaint. Admiral told Mr C that the refund of £398.47 was successfully sent to his card ending 0401. Admiral suggested that Mr C should contact his building society. Ms C and Mr C brought the complaint to us later in October 2025. Our investigator recommended (on 14 November 2025) that the complaint should be upheld. He thought that Admiral had the ARN (Acquirer Reference Number) and he didn’t understand why Admiral couldn’t provide this number to assist with the tracking of the refund. The investigator recommended that Admiral should: • provide the ARN to allow the building society to trace the refund; and

-- 1 of 3 --

• pay £50.00 in recognition of the inconvenience this matter has caused. Admriall disagreed and provided further information. Our investigator still recommended (on 16 February 2026) that the complaint should be upheld. He didn’t think that Mr C received the refund due for the policy. The investigator said that Admiral was unwilling to provide any reference to enable Mr C’s building society to verify the payment had been received. The investigator recommended that Admiral should: • reissue the refund; and • pay 8% (simple per annum) on this amount from the date the refund was issued to the date of settlement; and • pay £50.00 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to Mr C when trying to resolve the matter. Mr C accepted the investigator’s opinion. Admiral disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. It asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. It says, in summary, that: • It has provided a screenshot to show that the refund left and has still not been returned. The screenshot shows the date, amount and transaction number. • Storing the full card number would be a breach of PCI (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard). So it stored the truncated card number. 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. Admiral has provided a screenshot which shows that on 17 August 2025, it initiated a refund of £398.47 to a building society card ending 0401. The screenshot includes a reference number. However, Mr C says that the building society didn’t receive the payment. He has sent us copies of account statements showing his payment of £793.49 on about 17 April 2025, but not showing any receipt of £398.47 in or after August 2025. Moreover, Admiral’s screenshot doesn’t contain an ARN (which would be 23 digits). I consider that Admiral ought reasonably to have access to that number and I don’t find it fair and reasonable that it has not provided it to Mr C, the building society or us. Putting things right So I find it fair and reasonable to direct Admiral to pay Mr C £398.47. As he has been out of pocket since about 17 August 2025, I find it fair and reasonable to direct Admiral to pay Mr C simple interest on that amount at a yearly rate of 8% from that date. I don’t rule out the possibility that the building society is at fault. However, Admiral’s failure to provide the ARN has stymied investigation. So I find it fair and reasonable to leave Admiral to pursue recovery from the building society if it sees fit.

-- 2 of 3 --

Admiral’s response to the complaint has put Mr C to some trouble and caused him some upset. He has accepted the investigator’s recommendation. And, in the circumstances, I agree that £50.00 is fair for distress and inconvenience. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I direct Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited to pay Mr C: 1. £398.47 in part refund of his payment for the policy; and 2. simple interest on £398.47 at a yearly rate of 8% from 17 August 2025 to the date of the refund. If Admiral considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to take off income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr C how much it’s taken off. It should also give him a certificate showing this if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate; and 3. £50.00 for distress and inconvenience. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C and Ms C to accept or reject my decision before 13 May 2026. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --