DRN-6285103

The complaint Mr H complains about the way Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (Admiral) handled a claim he made under his motor insurance policy. What happened The circumstances of this complaint will be well known to both parties and so I’ve summarised events. In August 2024 the named driver on Mr H’s policy was unfortunately involved in an accident and so a claim was reported under the policy. Admiral declared Mr H’s vehicle as a total loss and placed a value on Mr H’s vehicle of £19,563. Mr H raised a complaint with Admiral. He raised several concerns which included the value placed on his vehicle, the lack of communication regarding the total loss of his vehicle and the personal belongings he had in his vehicle. On 29 October 2024 Admiral issued Mr H with a final response to his complaint. It said it hadn’t made any errors with the valuation of Mr H’s vehicle, and the personal belongings weren’t its responsibility. It said it had passed this aspect of Mr H’s complaint to its salvage agent. But it acknowledged it made errors during the handling of the claim, such as failing to call Mr H to discuss the total loss of his vehicle and difficulties with Admiral’s virtual assistant. It paid Mr H £150 compensation. On 3 February 2025 Admiral issued Mr H with another final response. It acknowledged it had made errors handling Mr H’s claim and so paid Mr H a further £100 compensation. It also said it would pay Mr H £200 for his personal belongings which were left in the vehicle. Mr H referred his complaint to this Service. Our Investigator looked into things but didn’t uphold Mr H’s complaint. Mr H didn’t agree with our Investigator. He said he didn’t think the complaint had been appropriately investigated and didn’t think the compensation Admiral had awarded was reasonable in the circumstances. I issued a provisional decision about this complaint and I said: ‘I want to acknowledge I’ve summarised Mr H’s complaint in 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 H 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 considered the complaint points Mr H has raised and which Admiral has responded to it its final responses dated 29 October 2024 and 3 February 2025. I understand Mr H has since raised concerns about the way Admiral has handled the liability aspect of his claim, however that is something that would need to be raised separately and

-- 1 of 6 --

doesn’t form part of this decision. Additionally, it appears some of the complaint points Mr H has raised with Admiral have since fallen away, so I’ve focused my decision on the issues which appear to be outstanding. I’ve addressed the key points separately. The valuation of Mr H’s vehicle The role of this Service isn’t to work out exactly what the value of an individual vehicle is. We look at whether the insurer has applied the terms of the policy correctly and has valued the vehicle fairly. Under the terms of Mr H’s policy, Admiral had to pay the market value of Mr H’s vehicle minus any policy excess. The terms define 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. This value is based on research from industry recognised motor trade guides.’ It’s standard practice for the industry to use valuation guides to work out the estimated value of a vehicle, and it’s not unreasonable that it does so. I find these to be persuasive as they’re based on nationwide research of likely sales prices. Admiral assessed the value of Mr H’s vehicle by using three valuation guides which provided valuations of £19,339, £19,450 and £19,900 respectively. It has then valued Mr H’s vehicle at £19,563 which is the average of these three guides. This Service consulted a further valuation guide which produced a valuation of £18,528. Mr H has provided examples of vehicles for sale which he says show the market value of his vehicle is more than Admiral have placed on it. I’ve reviewed the advertisements Mr H has provided, and having done so I don’t think they demonstrate the valuations Admiral put forward based on the market trade guides are unreasonable. The advertisements Mr H has provided include vehicles which are slightly older than his own, most with a much lower mileage, and several with a different transmission to his own. So, I don’t consider these examples provide a more reliable indicator of the value of Mr H’s vehicle. Taking into consideration all of the evidence provided, I think the valuation Admiral has placed on Mr H’s vehicle is a reasonable one in the circumstances. The valuation is at the upper end of the four valuation guides consulted by Admiral and this Service, and as I’ve said, I think the valuations provided by the guides are generally persuasive. So, I don’t require Admiral increase the valuation it has placed on Mr H’s vehicle. Mr H’s personal belongings Mr H has said he had a spare tyre and wheel replacement kit in his vehicle which doesn’t come with the vehicle as standard. He has said the lack of communication from Admiral has meant he was unable to retrieve these items from his vehicle meaning he has suffered a loss. Admiral has paid Mr H £200 which is the policy limit for personal belongings, but Mr H has said his belongings are worth more than this. It’s accepted by all parties that Admiral’s approved repairer spoke with the named

-- 2 of 6 --

driver on the policy and recommended personal belongings be removed from the vehicle. Mr H has said at this stage he was unaware his vehicle had been declared a total loss and hadn’t received any information about what would be happening with his vehicle. And I see no reason to doubt Mr H’s testimony about this. I can see once Mr H’s vehicle was deemed a total loss, Admiral sent him an email confirming this to be the case. This email included answers to frequently asked questions and whilst this included information about personal belongings, it said Mr H should have already removed his belongings from the vehicle. Admiral has acknowledged it failed to call Mr H to discuss the total loss of his vehicle as it should have done. It also said its salvage agent who collected Mr H’s vehicle should have contacted him to discuss removing personal belongings from the vehicle. However, the salvage agent has more recently said it has no record of attempting to contact Mr H. So, I think it’s clear Admiral didn’t contact Mr H as it should have done, meaning opportunities to discuss his personal belongings were missed. I’ve therefore thought about what would have happened had Admiral or its supplier contacted Mr H as it said it should have done. Based on the evidence provided, I think if Admiral or its supplier had called Mr H to discuss the total loss of his vehicle and his personal belongings, it’s more likely than not Mr H would have made arrangements to have his spare tyre and wheel replacement kit returned to him. So, I think Admiral’s error has led to Mr H suffering a loss of these items. Mr H has provided an email from the dealership he purchased his vehicle from to say the cost of a spare wheel kit, including fitting would be £695. However, the fitting of the replacement wheel kit isn’t something Admiral would be responsible for, even if Mr H’s spare wheel kit was returned to him. He would have always had to arrange to fit this to a new vehicle himself. So, I think if Mr H can provide evidence from the dealership, or the vehicle main dealership of the reasonable cost of the spare wheel and tyre replacement kit only, then Admiral should pay Mr H this amount. It can deduct the £200 it has already paid towards Mr H’s belongings from this amount. Courtesy vehicle offered Mr H has said he was offered a courtesy vehicle by Admiral’s approved repairer, but it wasn’t suitable given its size. The terms of Mr H’s policy explain that Admiral will provide a courtesy car if the vehicle is repaired at one of its approved repairers. But it explains the courtesy car isn’t intended to be a like for like replacement of Mr H’s vehicle, and will typically be a small hatchback. So whilst I appreciate this wasn’t a convenient replacement for Mr H, I’m satisfied Admiral acted fairly and in line with the terms of the policy when it offered Mr H a courtesy vehicle. Claim handling Admiral has acknowledged it hasn’t handled Mr H’s claim as well as it should have done. It has said it failed to communicate effectively with Mr H and paid the total loss settlement to him without discussing this with him first. It has paid him a total of £250 compensation and so I’ve considered whether I think this is reasonable to acknowledge the impact to Mr H. I think there is always an element of distress and inconvenience which come with

-- 3 of 6 --

claims of this nature. However, I think the way Admiral handled Mr H’s claim has exacerbated this. I think Mr H was caused frustration when he was unaware what was happening with his vehicle which could have been avoided if Admiral called him. In addition, I think Admiral unfairly directed Mr H to its supplier regarding his complaint about his personal belongings, who in turn didn’t contact Mr H until several months later. This has caused him further distress. Taking all of this into consideration, I think the £250 compensation Admiral has paid Mr H is reasonable to acknowledge the additional distress and inconvenience its errors caused. I think this fairly takes into consideration the frustration caused by its lack of communication whilst also acknowledging that overall, it did handle Mr H’s claim in relation to the total loss of his vehicle promptly. I appreciate Mr H has said had he been made aware the total loss settlement was being paid to him, he could have placed the funds into an alternative account and earned interest on this amount. However, I think if Mr H had been aware of the settlement, he would have likely used this to put toward a replacement vehicle rather than left it in an account to accrue interest, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to require Admiral pay Mr H lost interest.’ Mr H provided a detailed response to the provisional decision. In summary he said: • All of the sales evidence he provided shows vehicles of higher value than the value Admiral placed on his vehicle. And the older vehicles being priced higher than the value placed on his vehicle would suggest the value placed on his vehicle was insufficient. • He has provided evidence of the cost of a replacement spare wheel kit. • Admiral failed to make him aware they had made a payment into his bank account. And if his account had been hacked, he would have lost this money. • Had he known the payment had been made into his current account he would have moved the money into his savings account straight away and earned interest on this amount. • Admiral failed to inform him that they would be charging him for no longer having a multi-car insurance policy and didn’t allow him any grace period to place a new vehicle on the policy. • He thinks the ombudsman should take into account the points he has made about the health and wellbeing of the named driver caused by Admiral’s poor handling of the claim. I asked Mr H to provide evidence of the interest he would have earned had he moved the total loss funds into his savings account. Despite contacting his bank on a few occasions, he hasn’t been able to provide this evidence to date. I asked Admiral to provide information about its application of the multi-car discount which it has done. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable

-- 4 of 6 --

in the circumstances of this complaint. I acknowledge what Mr H has said about the market examples he has provided. However, for the reasons I’ve set out in the provisional decision, I’m not persuaded these examples demonstrate the valuation Admiral placed on his vehicle was an unreasonable one. I think Admiral has fairly taken into consideration the market valuation guides and has placed a reasonable value on Mr H’s vehicle. In my provisional decision I said Admiral should reimburse Mr H the cost of a replacement spare wheel kit. Mr H has said he has already provided evidence of this cost. I’ve taken this into consideration, but the cost provided by the dealership Mr H purchased his vehicle from has included fitting within this quote. Even had Mr H’s replacement wheel kit been returned to him, it would have always been his responsibility to have this fitted to another vehicle. So, it isn’t reasonable to require Admiral also pay for the fitting of the replacement wheel kit. If Mr H can provide evidence from the dealership, or the vehicle main dealership of the reasonable cost of the spare wheel and tyre replacement kit only, then Admiral should pay Mr H this amount. It can deduct the £200 it has already paid towards Mr H’s belongings from this amount. Mr H has said Admiral failed to make him aware the total loss payment had been made into his current account and he had concerns about this had his account been hacked. However, I can’t make an award for losses which didn’t occur. Thankfully Mr H’s account wasn’t hacked, and he didn’t lose the funds paid. Mr H has also said had he been made aware the funds had been paid into his account he would have moved this into his savings account whilst looking for a new vehicle. This would have meant he would have earned interest on this amount. In my provisional decision I said I didn’t think Admiral needed to pay interest, but I’ve changed my mind on this and I’ll explain why. Admiral has provided evidence of an email it sent when it declared Mr H’s vehicle a total loss. But it did also acknowledge it should have contacted Mr H by phone to discuss the total loss of his vehicle. Had it done so, I’m satisfied Mr H would have been aware of the funds and it makes logical sense that he would move the funds into an account which could earn him interest until it was used to purchase a new vehicle, even if this was for a short period of time. In Mr H’s original submission to this Service he said he would have earned 4% interest, although more recently he has said he would have earned more than this. I asked Mr H if he could provide evidence of the interest rate he would have been able to earn on the total loss settlement between the period the funds were paid to him until 28 September 2024 when he said he became aware of them. Despite Mr H’s best efforts over the last month, he hasn’t been able to obtain this information. I see no reason to doubt Mr H’s testimony that he would have earned interest on the funds had he moved it into a savings account, although he’s been unable to demonstrate exactly how much. In the interests of being pragmatic and achieving finality for both parties, I think it would be fair for Admiral to pay Mr H an additional £50. This is to acknowledge Mr H has likely lost out on interest during the above period, but the specific amount hasn’t been demonstrated. Mr H has said Admiral failed to make him aware it would be charging him for the loss of his multi-car discount. Admiral has provided an email it said it sent to Mr H making him aware his vehicle had been removed from the policy and the cost of this change was around £60. So, I’m satisfied Admiral did make Mr H aware of this change, and the charge it applied for

-- 5 of 6 --

this was in line with the terms of Mr H’s policy regarding the multi-car discount. I do think Admiral should have given Mr H the opportunity to place a new vehicle on the policy prior to applying the charge for the loss of multi-car discount. But it has provided evidence it applied a multi-car discount once Mr H placed a new vehicle on the policy and so I’m satisfied he hasn’t suffered a financial loss due to this. I’ve taken into consideration what Mr H has said about the impact this claim has had on him and the named driver. As I’ve said previously, I think there would have always been an element of distress and inconvenience given the circumstances of this claim. And any award of compensation is to acknowledge the additional distress and inconvenience caused by Admiral’s errors. I remain of the opinion £250 compensation is reasonable to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. My final decision For the reasons I’ve outlined above, I uphold Mr H’s complaint about Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited. I require it to: • On receipt of evidence from the dealer Mr H purchased his vehicle from, or the vehicle main dealership, pay Mr H the reasonable costs for a replacement tyre and wheel replacement kit without fitting. Admiral can deduct the £200 it has paid toward personal belongings from this payment. • Pay Mr H a total of £300 compensation. This amount includes £50 toward loss of interest. Admiral can deduct any compensation it has already paid Mr H as part of this complaint from this amount. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 12 May 2026. Andrew Clarke Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --