DRN-6193574

The complaint Mr B and Miss W have complained about the market value Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited paid when Miss W made a claim under her car insurance policy. Mr B is a named driver and the lead complainant. For ease I will refer to Mr B in my decision on behalf of Ms W. What happened In October 2025 Ms W made a claim under her car insurance policy. Admiral said it would settle the claim as a total loss. So Admiral agreed to pay the market value for Ms W’s car, minus the excess due. Mr B complained to Admiral as he said the valuation it paid didn’t put them back in the position they were in before the claim. Mr B wasn’t satisfied with the explanation Admiral gave as to how it reached the valuation and he wanted Admiral to provide a clearer breakdown. He didn’t believe Admiral had taken into account the specifications of the car and he was unhappy with the excess that had been deducted from the settlement. In November 2025 Admiral upheld part of Mr B’s complaint. It said while the industry guides it relied on contained sensitive data, so it didn’t share this, it could have provided advert examples it relied on when Mr B asked for clarification. For this failing Admiral apologised, provided the information, and paid £50 compensation. Admiral said the settlement it paid and the excess it deducted was correct and in line with the policy. Mr B remained unhappy and asked us to look at his complaint. One of our Investigators noted that Admiral had paid the average of three of the four main motor trade guides, which we rely on in our approach to valuation complaints. The Investigator found that when reviewing the fourth guide, this produced a higher valuation than the other three. As Admiral hadn’t paid the highest of the guides, the Investigator looked at the evidence Admiral relied on to justify not doing so. The Investigator found the evidence wasn’t persuasive to show Admiral’s decision to pay lower than the highest of the guides was reasonable. So he recommended Admiral increase the valuation from £7,087 to £7,271. He recommended Admiral pay interest on the difference at our applied rate. The Investigator explained that the excess deducted was fair and in line with the policy. He didn’t recommend compensation. He explained that sometimes a customer and insurer will disagree and this will involve additional time and communication. As the Investigator recommended Admiral pay interest on the loss of funds of £184, he thought this was enough to resolve the complaint. So the Investigator didn’t recommend a compensation award outside of the £50 already paid by Admiral.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr B accepted the Investigator’s recommendation to increase the settlement. But he believes compensation is due for the distress and inconvenience caused as Admiral didn’t pay a fair settlement. Admiral disagreed. It says the difference recommended by the Investigator means it has paid close to the highest of the trade guides in line with our approach. So it doesn’t agree it needs to pay any more. So the case 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. Miss W’s policy with Admiral says the most it will pay in the event of a claim is the market value of her car at the time of loss. Admiral says it will rely on three main motor trade guides when reaching a valuation. We find the trade guides are a reliable way to reach a valuation for a car. They provide likely selling prices based on the same make, model, specification, condition, age and mileage for the month of loss. We will also take into account adverts, where they are persuasive in showing why an insurer paid the valuation it did, if it is lower than the highest of the guides. In this case, the advert examples provided when Miss W made her claim are not persuasive. They show only one example of a car similar to Miss W’s with an advertised price of £6,995. Miss W’s car is not an unusual one and so there are a wide range of adverts available. In these circumstances, we don’t think it fair for an insurer to rely on only one advert as persuasive evidence to justify paying lower than the highest of the guides. Admiral provided further examples, but this was three months after the date of loss. So these are not as persuasive as the evidence submitted at the time of loss. Admiral didn’t rely on all of the main motor trade guides. So for the one it didn’t include, our Investigator obtained a valuation. This came to £7,217. Admiral chose to pay the average of three of the four available guides which is not in line with our approach. The Investigator also checked the second hand value for the additional specifications of Miss W’s car. As her car was seven years old, and many of the specifications mentioned were included as standard in the model, the difference came to £75 (inclusive of the £7,217). Admiral says that the settlement it paid is close to the highest of the guides, as the difference reflects a percentage of 2.5%. I don’t consider it fair for Miss W to be without funds of almost £200 in this case. I think the difference is enough to show that Admiral hasn’t paid very close to the highest of the guides in line with our approach. From a list of adverts provided by Mr B, he thought Admiral should pay a valuation between £8,000 and £9,000. But for the same reasoning applied to Admiral, the examples were for cars that had lower mileage, or newer, or both. So they were not comparable to Miss W’s car. So I think Admiral should pay an additional £184 with interest to reflect a fair valuation for Miss W’s car. The excess due is the first part of any claim which a customer pays. Admiral explained when

-- 2 of 3 --

the excess is payable and the amount in Miss W’s policy schedule. So I’m satisfied that Admiral’s deduction for the excess was correct. Mr B feels a compensation award is merited for his time raising a complaint and bringing his complaint to us. I understand Mr B has spent time dealing with Admiral and this service. Sometimes this is necessary where there is a disagreement. And having to make a claim will inevitably involve disruption and inconvenience. I find the award of interest at our preferred rate for the loss of funds for £184 to be a fair outcome to this complaint. I can see that Admiral paid the interim settlement promptly. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. I require Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited to do the following: • Pay an additional £184 for the market value of Miss W’s car to reflect the highest of the motor trade guides. • Pay interest at a rate of 8% simple interest a year from the date Admiral paid the interim settlement to the date it pays. • If Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to withhold income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr B and Miss W how much it’s taken off. It should also give Mr B and Miss W a tax deduction certificate if they ask for one, so they can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B and Miss W to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Geraldine Newbold Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --