DRN-6257225

The complaint Mr C has complained about Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited’s handling of a claim on his motor insurance policy. In particular he said it undervalued his car and disposed of it without his consent. He says that as a result he lost personal possessions from the car. What happened Mr C reported an accident to Admiral in January 2025. Admiral moved the car to one of its approved repairers. During that process Mr C told Admiral he had left some personal possessions in the car. Admiral suggested that, as it had provided a hire car at the time, he could use that to go and collect his possessions. Admiral later deemed the car a total loss. Mr C said he would submit a repair estimate from the manufacturer, which might have indicated the car was not a total loss. Admiral contacted Mr C on a number of occasions over the ensuing weeks but Mr C did not provide the repair estimate nor confirm how he wanted Admiral to proceed. Admiral told Mr C it would move the car to its salvage agents. Some months later, in September 2025, Mr C contacted Admiral again. At that point Admiral confirmed that its salvage agents had disposed of his car and the possessions within it. Mr C complained. Admiral upheld his complaint. It arranged to settle Mr C’s claim for the total loss of his car based on its market value of £7,335. It also told him he could claim up to £200 for the possessions left in the car that were subsequently disposed of. In additional it paid Mr C £200 compensation for his distress and inconvenience. Mr C didn't think Admiral had dealt with him fairly and brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. One of our Investigators looked into it. He thought Admiral had valued Mr C’s car fairly but recommended that, after receiving a detailed list of the disposed personal items, Admiral should pay for the cost of replacing those items. Admiral didn't agree with our Investigator’s complaint assessment so the matter's been passed to me to determine. 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. The car’s value Mr C’s policy says that if his car was deemed a total loss Admiral would pay its market value. The policy defines market value like this: “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. This value is based on research from industry recognised motor trade guides.” Assessing the market value of a car is not an exact science. And it's not my role to value vehicles. So, I’ve considered if Admiral’s valuation of Mr C’s car is fair and in line with the policy terms. That is I’ll look to see if it has produced a market value representative of the cost of buying a similar car, immediately before the date of loss.

-- 1 of 4 --

When looking into these types of complaints we consider trade guides, adverts and other relevant evidence. We generally find the guides most persuasive as they’re based on nationwide research of likely selling prices. So they’re often more reliable than individual adverts. Given the competitive market for second-hand vehicle sales, and to minimise the risk of detriment to the policyholder, the Financial Ombudsman Service feels that the starting point for any settlement should be the highest valuation returned by the trade guides. Then, if an insurer wants to pay less, or a consumer thinks they should be paid more, they will have to evidence why that is fair. It might be that there’s persuasive evidence, for example from adverts or other independent reports, which suggest that another value, lower or higher, is fair in the relevant circumstances. In this case Admiral obtained valuations from three trade guides using the correct details and mileage for Mr C’s car. It then valued Mr C’s car based on what it described as the ‘top book’ of those valuations – that is the highest sum – which it said was £7,335 (before deducting Mr C’s excess). In order to decide if Admiral’s valuation was fair we’ve looked at the figures produced by the three guides Admiral used together with a fourth. The fourth guide produce a slightly higher figure than Admiral’s – a valuation of £7,490. That sum is only marginally higher than Admiral’s valuation. And, when it produced its valuation one of the trade guides included adverts for cars for sale which showed that some cars similar to Mr C’s were being advertised for sums below Admiral’s valuation. So I'm satisfied the adverts show Mr C could have replaced his car based on the value Admiral placed on the car. As a result I'm persuaded that Admiral paid him a fair sum representative of the market value of his car. Mr C said that given the delay in Admiral settling his claim the value of his car had actually gone up in that time. That might be the case. But generally I don't think the delay in Admiral settling the claim was entirely its fault. It contacted Mr C on numerous occasions asking for his instructions on the next steps but he didn’t reply. Mr C’s explained to us that he has suffered some ill-health. Whilst that may be the case, I have to keep in mind that any delays in settling the claim weren’t of Admiral’s making. Also Mr C’s policy is clear that if the car was a total loss Admiral would pay its market value immediately before that loss. That’s what it did in this case. So, as it acted in line with the policy’s terms, I think it did so fairly. Disposing of Mr C’s car and possessions After Admiral initially deemed the car a total loss Mr C said he would submit an alternative repair estimate. But, despite asking him for this on many occasions he didn't submit it. Admiral then notified Mr C that it would move his car to its salvage agents. However, when it did that it wasn’t clear that it would also instruct its salvage agents to dispose of the car and anything in it. Admiral has acknowledged that this was an oversight on its part. And it has paid Mr C £200 compensation for the impact of that error. I think that’s a reasonable sum in the circumstances. That's because the error undoubtedly caused disappointment and a loss of expectation and has taken considerable effort to sort out. And the compensation Admiral has paid is in line with awards we make in other cases of similar seriousness that have had a similar impact. However, Admiral has not compensated Mr C for his lost possessions. I will acknowledge here that Admiral did advise Mr C at an early stage that he could collect the possessions from the car himself. But it appears he didn't do so. However, given Admiral wasn’t clear that it would dispose of his car and his possessions Mr C may not have appreciated that he would lose those if he didn't collect them. And, as we now know that’s what happened. Admiral also said that it could deal with the loss of Mr C’s property under the terms of his policy. But that has a £200 limit on it and it doesn't include some items like documents. So,

-- 2 of 4 --

in the circumstances here, I don't think it would be fair to apply that policy term. That's because Mr C’s possessions weren’t lost as part of the accident leading to the claim, but instead because Admiral didn't take proper care of them. So I think Admiral should compensate Mr C for the items he lost rather than dealing with them as a claim under his policy. I understand that a sticking point for Admiral is that Mr C hasn't been entirely clear about what exactly he lost. And he’s told us that he can't be certain about everything he lost. However, if he can't be certain he lost an item then I don't think it would be fair to make Admiral responsible for the costs of replacing those items. That said Mr C has been clear about some of the items he lost and he’s provided some evidence, for example, photographs of him wearing the items and or user manuals of some other pieces. We forwarded that evidence to Admiral on 5 February 2026. Admiral has accepted that Mr C may no longer have receipts for everything that was in the car. But some things he has been consistent about and produced evidence of owning include: • A pair of specific designer sunglasses • A named wireless speaker • A pair of manufacturer specific headphones I think Mr C has already provided sufficient evidence of those things meaning that Admiral should be able to identify the replacement costs. However, if it believes it can't do so with the information Mr C has already provided, then it will be reasonable for it to ask Mr C to identify the specific items lost for example by the specific model name or number and for Admiral to compensate him for the costs of replacing those. In those circumstances Mr C should provide that information within 28 days of Admiral’s request. If he does not provide that evidence within that timeframe, then I think it will be fair and reasonable for Admiral to conclude that Mr C no longer wishes to claim for the lost items Mr C has been less clear about other items including a coat, shoes, a jumper and a shirt which he said were in the car. However, as I've already said above he told us that he couldn’t be certain what was in the car. So, if he’s adamant he also lost those things from the car and still wishes to claim for them, I think it’s reasonable that he provides Admiral with the specific details of the lost items together with a reasonable explanation about why he’s sure those were in the car at the time. Mr C should do this within 28 days of the date he accepts my final decision. If Mr C does not provide that evidence and a reasonable explanation as set out above within that timeframe, then, again, I think it will be fair and reasonable for Admiral to conclude that Mr C no longer wishes to claim for them. Additionally, Mr C also had to replace his lost passport which he said cost him £94. When doing so he had to forward his birth certificate, which cost him £9.25 to post. I think it’s fair that on production of appropriate evidence to Admiral of paying those costs Admiral reimburses those. Again Mr C should provide that evidence within 28 days of his acceptance of this final decision. In line with our usual process, as he's been without the use of that money, Admiral should also add simple interest, at a rate of 8% a year, to the sums reimbursed for Mr C’s passport and the postal costs associated with him sending his birth certificate from the dates he paid those costs to the date it reimburses him1. 1 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.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision Once Mr C has provided the evidence set out above within the time scale specified Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited must reimburse him for the items he lost when Admiral disposed of them. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 13 May 2026. Joe Scott Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --