Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6100130

The complaint Miss T complains Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (Admiral) unfairly settled a third-party claim on her motor insurance policy and provided a poor level of service during the claims process. She further complains of an increase in the cost of her policy premiums when it was due for renewal. What happened In August 2024 Miss T was involved in a collision in which she hit the back of a third-party vehicle. The third-party made a claim on her motor insurance policy for the damage caused. Because Miss T had gone into the back of the third-party vehicle she was considered to be at fault. During the claims process Miss T made numerous attempts to upload CCTV evidence to Admiral’s system before it successfully uploaded in July 2025. After Miss T made a complaint, Admiral awarded her £100 due to the issues encountered in trying to upload the CCTV evidence, and for the lack of updates it had provided to her on the claim progress. After Miss T became aware of the cost of the third-party claim she made a further complaint that the claim was settled without any communication to her and the cost of repairs was greatly inflated. She further complains of an increase to her policy premiums at renewal. Because Miss T was not happy with Admiral, she brought the complaint to our service. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They looked into the case and said they considered the £100 compensation to be fair and reasonable in recognition of the communication issues, and they didn’t believe Admiral had acted incorrectly in relation to the settlement of her claim. They thought Miss T’s premiums had increased in line with general industry standards, and didn’t believe this was unfair or unreasonable. As Miss T is unhappy with our investigator’s view the complaint has been brought to me for a final decision to be made. 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. I think it would be helpful to explain that the Financial Ombudsman Service is an alternative dispute resolution service set up to resolve individual complaints based on what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of each case. We do not punish or fine businesses or request that they change their practices or processes as that is the role of the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’). Whilst I'm mindful of Miss T’s frustrations with some of Admiral’s ways of working, our service is not the financial regulator, and we are unable to interfere with the processes and systems a business puts in place. Therefore, I have not considered or commented on such complaint points.

-- 1 of 4 --

Miss T also raised concerns abouts how Admiral handled her complaint, but we can’t consider this. This is because the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) sets out the rules which govern our service – the DISP Rules – and the rules say we can only look into concerns about FCA regulated activities. Complaint handling isn’t an FCA regulated activity, so it’s not within our remit to consider how Admiral handled the complaint. In this case a claim was received by Admiral from a third-party insurer in September 2024 following a collision between their insured and Miss T in August 2024. Although Miss T hadn’t reported the incident to Admiral herself when it happened the previous month, when it asked, she provided a written statement and photographs of the incident and tried to submit additional supporting CCTV evidence. When Miss T called Admiral for an update on the claim in January 2025 it told her it hadn’t been able to view the CCTV footage she had submitted. I saw evidence she had initially attempted to upload it in September 2024 and from January 2025 she made a number of further attempts. At the start of July 2025 Miss T complained to Admiral about the issues she was encountering when trying to upload this evidence to its system. Due to these difficulties, and also its lack of updates on the claim, Admiral paid her £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused. Miss T confirmed Admiral had addressed her concerns at this point. The upload was eventually successful in mid-July 2025. After the CCTV footage was successfully uploaded it was reviewed by Admiral alongside the other evidence already available. It said the CCTV footage confirmed the incident with the third-party car was Miss T’s fault and there was no defence it could rely on if it were to proceed to court. Admiral made her aware of this in a phone call in July 2025 and the claim was closed and recorded as her fault. In this case the claim was open for approximately ten months. I do agree if the CCTV evidence had been received sooner, the decision on liability for this claim would’ve been concluded much sooner. However, other than the inconvenience to Miss T in uploading the CCTV evidence there was no other negative impact. I’m satisfied the £100 compensation Miss T accepted for the issues encountered with the upload of evidence and the lack of updates on the claim was reasonable. When Miss T received her motor insurance renewal invitation, the cost of her premiums had increased so she decided to obtain cover elsewhere. When she received her no claims bonus confirmation letter she saw the claim was recorded as paid in October 2024. She complained that she had not been aware of this and she’d been encouraged to submit the CCTV evidence for months after this date, which was ultimately unnecessary, because the claim had already been settled. She further complained that the cost of the claim wasn’t proportionate to the damage caused and of the increase in the cost of her policy premiums. Claim settlement I looked at the terms of the policy, and it says: “General conditions Defending or settling a claim We are entitled to: • conduct the investigation, defence and settlement of any claim on your behalf.” That means Admiral has the right to deal with claims as it sees fit and doesn’t require Miss T’s consent to decide how to settle a claim and it may make a decision that she doesn’t agree with. But I’ll look to see that it’s done so reasonably. In this case the third-party claim was paid without prejudice in October 2024, however the claim was not settled and concluded until July 2025 after the CCTV evidence had been

-- 2 of 4 --

considered. In September 2024 Admiral considered the evidence that had been provided, which appeared to show Miss T at fault. Therefore to avoid the third-party insurer issuing legal proceedings the claim was paid on a without prejudice basis whilst it fully investigated liability. This meant Admiral could recover its costs if liability was agreed in Miss T’s favour. Admiral wanted to defend the claim if this was possible, and the CCTV footage was a key piece of evidence that would assist its decision making one way or the other. Acceptance of liability was not agreed until the CCTV evidence was received. Therefore it was not unnecessary evidence. Admiral could have told Miss T that it had paid the third-party claim without prejudice, but because there was no impact or detriment to her, I am not aware of there being any requirement to have told her. Ultimately, it was settled without prejudice and therefore if the CCTV evidence had changed its initial judgment that the incident was Miss T’s fault, Admiral could’ve taken further action with the third-party insurer. In this case its decision to accept liability was not concluded until July 2025 after the CCTV evidence was reviewed. Cost of repairs Although Miss T doesn’t contest the recording of fault liability she complains about the proportionality of the cost of repairs to the damage she believes was caused. She said she was at no point told about the cost of the claim from the third-party and it wasn’t until she received her no claims bonus document she found out the amount the third-party claim had been settled at. I saw the total cost of the claim was £3,412.66 which included the cost of car hire during the repairs. Admiral said it has the obligation and responsibility to mitigate losses and ensure claims are settled appropriately, therefore it wouldn’t authorise unreasonable costs. Admiral said it has a protocol agreement with its repair partner which is a commercial business agreement in which it pays the claim on a without prejudice basis, and unless it has a legitimate concern it is unable to argue the cost, so it doesn’t need to see sight of the invoices paid. In this case the claim was scrutinised by its in-house engineers, and it was satisfied the costs were accurate and justified before being authorised. I recognise Miss T obtained advice from an engineer who said the repairs could’ve been completed for around £400. However the car wasn’t inspected by this engineer. Additionally it’s not clear if this estimate was like for like and if it had considered new parts or repairs to parts, or met Admiral’s standards for safety, quality, or offered warranty compliance, so I’m unable to consider this as a comparable estimate. It's not common that claim costs are disclosed, however if they are requested I would expect Admiral to provide them. Miss T requested a detailed engineers report to enable her to establish the work carried out to the third-party vehicle, which parts were repaired or replaced or how the repairs and costs related to the observed damage. This wasn’t available because of the protocol agreement, but she was provided with the breakdown of repair, car hire and other costs. If Miss T had been aware of the cost when the claim was paid without prejudice in October 2024, she may have made a complaint sooner than she did, however, because I found the claim was authorised in line with its standard processes and protocol, the cost of the claim would remain the same. And as per the conditions of her policy Admiral is entitled to settle a claim on her behalf. Therefore I haven’t found Admiral acted unfairly here. Policy premiums

-- 3 of 4 --

When Miss T received her motor insurance renewal invitation her premiums had increased by around £200. She was unhappy about this so she decided not to renew with Admiral. After being involved in an accident, as in Miss T’s case where she was found 100% at fault, premiums are likely to increase because all insurers assess risk based on claims history. When a fault claim is recorded insurers are likely to see this indicates there is a higher chance of other claims. The cost of repairs may or may not be a factor that is considered, but cost doesn’t often make much difference to premiums and it won’t be the only factor that is considered. When calculating what premium to charge individual policy holders, Admiral will take numerous different factors into account. We cannot tell Admiral (or any insurer) that it should use, or discount, specific data. That’s because the risk is Admiral’s to take on so it will decide how to assess it and will price the policies it offers accordingly. Insurers aren’t expected to divulge underwriting information either to customers, or competitors. This is because this is commercially sensitive information. I don’t uphold this part of Miss T’s complaint. Therefore, although I recognise Miss T feels strongly about the lack of transparency about the cost of the repairs and I know she will be disappointed, I don’t uphold her complaint and don’t require Admiral to do anything further in this case. My final decision For the reasons I have given I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss T to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Sally-Ann Harding Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --