DRN-6295055

The complaint Mr and Mrs C complain about information given to them by Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited when they contacted it to make a claim under their travel insurance policy. What happened Mr and Mrs C were insured under a travel insurance policy provided by Admiral. Mrs C telephoned Admiral in March 2025, following a power outage at a London airport. Admiral said it could look into a claim but couldn’t promise what the outcome would be. Admiral subsequently said Mr and Mrs C’s claim wasn’t covered because the policy terms and conditions excluded claims for electrical outages. Unhappy, Mr and Mrs C brought complaints to the attention of our Service. One of our Investigators looked into what had happened and said he didn’t think Admiral had acted unfairly or unreasonably in the circumstances. Mr and Mrs C didn’t agree with our Investigator’s opinion, so the complaint was referred to me to make a decision as the final stage in our process. I made my provisional decision about Mr and Mrs C’s complaint earlier this month. In it, I said: ‘This complaint only relates to the information given to Mrs C by Admiral. Mr and Mrs C also brought a previous complaint to our Service about Admiral’s decision to decline their claim, but I can’t comment on that here. I wouldn’t generally expect a travel insurer to offer advice about whether a claim is covered when first notified about a loss. It isn’t generally practical or reasonable for an insurer to be in a position to do this. And an insurer is entitled to carry out reasonable investigations into a claim before confirming cover. So, advice to log a claim isn’t inherently unusual, unfair or unreasonable. However, this situation was a somewhat unique and high-profile one. Admiral has sent our Service an internal bulletin which was sent to its staff about the power outage. This internal bulletin clearly states there is no cover under the policy for circumstances like Mr and Mrs C’s because of the general exclusion relating to electrical outages. I’ve asked Admiral on two occasions to confirm what time this internal bulletin was sent to its staff. Admiral hasn’t responded to either of my requests. Based on the information available to me, I think it’s more likely than not that the internal bulletin was sent out before Mrs C’s telephone call to Admiral on the morning in question. On that basis, I’d have expected the agent to tell Mrs C that any claim wouldn’t be covered (other than in the limited situations where Admiral agreed to make ex-gratia payments). So, based on the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t think Admiral acted fairly and reasonably when giving Mrs C the information it did during the first telephone call in March 2025.

-- 1 of 3 --

However, this doesn’t mean that I think it would be fair and reasonable for Admiral to pay Mr and Mrs C’s claim. My decision is based on the balance of probabilities, i.e. what I think is more likely than not to have happened in the circumstances. I understand Mr and Mrs C say, if Mrs C was given different advice, they would have gone ahead and travelled a day later. But, based on the timings of the trip which Mr and Mrs C have outlined and the fact they had already asked the airline for a refund before contacting Admiral, I can’t fairly conclude it’s likely that Mr and Mrs C would have made alternative arrangements to travel if they had been given different advice. So, I think Mr and Mrs C are more likely than not to have always ended up losing out financially regardless of what Admiral told them. But I think it would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances for Admiral to pay Mr and Mrs C compensation for the distress, inconvenience and loss of expectation they experienced. It’s difficult to put a value on this but, having taken into account our published guidance on the payment of compensation for distress and inconvenience as well as all the facts of this specific case, I think a total payment of £300 compensation would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I note Mr and Mrs C have also mentioned Admiral’s initial failure to log their complaint, but complaint handling isn’t a regulated activity, so this isn’t something I have the power to comment on under the rules that govern the operation of our Service. I understand this won’t be the outcome Mr and Mrs C were hoping for, but my role is to make an independent and impartial decision which I think is fair and reasonable to both parties in the circumstances and I’m satisfied a compensation award of £300 achieves this. If Admiral responds to my provisional decision with submissions that the internal bulletin wasn’t sent out until after Mrs C’s call to it then I’d expect to see very clear evidence (such as system screenshots) demonstrating this. In the event that Admiral does provide such additional evidence, then I may reach a different outcome to what I’ve set out above.’ Mr and Mrs C said, although the compensation award didn’t cover the amount they lost, they were happy to accept it. Admiral also accepted my provisional decision. 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. As neither party has provided any new evidence or additional submissions, I see no reason to change my provisional findings. Putting things right Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited needs to put things right by paying Mr and Mrs C £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience they experienced. Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it Mr and Mrs C accept my final decision. If it pays later than this it must also pay interest on the compensation from the deadline date for settlement to the date of

-- 2 of 3 --

payment at 8% a year simple1. My final decision I’m upholding Mr and Mrs C’s complaint about Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited, and I direct it to put things right in the way I’ve outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs C to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Leah Nagle Ombudsman 1 If Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest it should tell Mr and Mrs C how much it has taken off. It should also give Mr and Mrs C a tax deduction certificate if they ask for one so they can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate.

-- 3 of 3 --