Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6228398

The complaint Mr A complains that Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (“Admiral”) mishandled his claim on a motor insurance policy. What happened The subject matter of the insurance, the claim and the complaint is an electric car, made by a specialist electric car- maker and first registered in March 2020. Mr A acquired the car subject to a finance agreement. For the year from early June 2024, Mr A had the car insured on a comprehensive policy with Admiral. Unfortunately, Mr A reported to Admiral that on about 21 July 2024, he had damaged the car. By October 2024, Mr A had complained to Admiral. By a final response dated 24 October 2024, Admiral responded to that complaint. On about 4 November 2024, Admiral decided that the car was a total loss. Mr A disagreed. On about 11 November 2024, Admiral’s salvage company collected the car. By about 20 November 2024, Admiral thought the car was in salvage category “S” (structural damage). Admiral said the car’s pre-accident value had been £18,718.50. Admiral said Mr A hadn’t disclosed a motoring offence, so he’d only paid about two thirds of the correct premium and it would settle his claim proportionately. By January 2025, Mr A had complained to Admiral (“the January 2025 complaint”) including that: • Its approved repairer had over-priced repairs • It had written off the car • It had sent the car to its salvage company • It had under-valued the car • It was responsible for delay • He had experienced out of pocket expenses By a final response dated 16 January 2025, Admiral apologised that it had sent the car to the salvage company. Admiral accepted that it had been responsible for delay. Admiral said it would send Mr A £100.00 for distress and inconvenience.

-- 1 of 5 --

Admiral said that the previous final response had dealt with out of pocket expenses. By the final response dated 16 January 2025, Admiral turned down the complaint that it had written off the car. By mid-March 2025, Mr A had complained to Admiral including that: • He hadn’t received a report on the car’s battery • Its salvage company had damaged the car • He’d carried out some repairs and Admiral should compensate him • Admiral should complete the repairs By a final response dated 28 April 2025, Admiral accepted that its approved repairer hadn’t provided a battery report. Admiral also accepted that the windscreen was damaged while the car was at its salvage company. Admiral said it would send Mr A £125.00 for distress and inconvenience, and its salvage company would send him £481.00 including £100.00 for distress and inconvenience. The final response dated 28 April said that Admiral’s in-house engineers had reviewed the case multiple times and decided that the car was a total loss in category S. In mid-May 2025, Mr A complained to Admiral again including that: • It had written off the car • It had sent the car to its salvage company • The write off category S had caused the car-maker to block him from using its supercharging. By an email dated 2 June 2025, Admiral told Mr A his next step was to contact us. Mr A didn’t bring the January 2025 complaint to us within six months after 16 January 2025. Mr A brought his complaint to us in mid-August 2025. He asked us to direct Admiral to remove the category S marker, authorise repairs and pay him compensation for the inconvenience. our investigator’s opinion Our investigator didn’t recommend that the complaint should be upheld. He thought that Admiral had acted fairly and reasonably. Mr A disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. He asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. my provisional decision After considering all the evidence, I issued a provisional decision on this complaint to Mr A and to Admiral on 2 March 2026. I summarise my findings: I didn’t find it fair and reasonable to direct Admiral to reimburse Mr A for the February 2025 battery check or to pay for a further battery check.

-- 2 of 5 --

I didn’t find it fair and reasonable to direct Admiral to change the category S categorisation. I’d thought about Admiral’s repairer’s failure to provide evidence of a battery check, and its salvage company’s acceptance of responsibility for damage to the windscreen. Admiral’s payment of £125.00 and its salvage company’s payment of £100.00 for distress and inconvenience were fair and reasonable. Subject to any further information either from Mr A or from Admiral, my provisional decision was to not uphold this complaint. I didn’t intend to direct Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited to do any more in response to this complaint. Neither Mr A nor Admiral responded to the provisional decision. So I see no reason to change my view. 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. Scope of this decision The Financial Conduct Authority’s dispute resolution rules are binding on the Financial Ombudsman Service. One such rule is that if a consumer makes a complaint to a regulated firm, receives a final response and doesn’t bring the complaint to us within six months, then we can’t investigate it, unless the firm consents or exceptional circumstances prevented the consumer from complying with that time limit. After the final response dated January 2025, Mr A was able to continue to correspond with Admiral including in May 2025. Mr A hasn’t shown any exceptional circumstances that (whilst they allowed him to continue to correspond with Admiral) prevented him from bringing the January 2025 complaint to us. Admiral hasn’t consented to us dealing with that complaint out of time. Admiral’s final response dated April 2025 didn’t, in my view, say that Admiral was reviewing the January 2025 complaint. Rather, Admiral repeated its earlier position that the car was a total loss. So, under the rule to which I have referred, I can’t make any findings on the January 2025 complaint including the following complaints against Admiral: • Its approved repairer had over-priced repairs • It had written off the car • It had under-valued the car • It had sent the car to its salvage company • It was responsible for delay (before the January 2025 complaint) • Mr A had experienced out of pocket expenses (before the January 2025 complaint) Admiral’s policy terms allowed it to decide whether to treat the car as a total loss (“a write- off”) or to repair the damaged vehicle. Those were alternatives.

-- 3 of 5 --

Generally we expect an insurer to treat a damaged vehicle as a total loss if the estimated cost of repair is a high percentage (say 70%) of its pre-accident value. As I can’t deal with the complaint that Admiral had written off the car, I can’t deal with the complaint that Admiral should instead follow the alternative of repairing the accident damage. For the same reason, I can’t deal with the complaint that that Admiral should compensate Mr A for his cost of repairing accident damage in February 2025. Unlike the final response dated January 2025, the final response dated April 2025 indicates that Mr A had complained about the salvage categorisation as “S” (structural). So I consider on balance that I can consider that complaint. This decision From its MOT history, the car passed a test on 8 August 2023 with a recorded mileage of about 24,000. The accident and the need to make a claim were, in my view, bound to cause Mr A distress and inconvenience. The car’s MOT certificate expired on 7 August 2024. Mr A wanted a courtesy car and Admiral would only provide one while the car was at one of its authorised repairers. So he agreed that Admiral instructed a repairer. On about 29 October 2024, Admiral received its repairer’s estimate for almost £25,000.00 including VAT. I accept that that repairer still hasn’t provided evidence of a battery check. I don’t condone that and I will come back to the issue of distress and inconvenience. I accept that in December 2024, Mr A got a repair estimate of just under £10,000.00 from a repairer franchised by the car-maker. On about 17 December 2025, Admiral received that estimate. It didn’t authorise repairs. On about 10 January 2025, a recovery company took the damaged vehicle from the salvage company to the franchised garage. In February 2025, the franchised garage invoiced Mr A about £700.00 for a battery check and for attending to a coolant issue. From its MOT history, the car passed a test on 21 March 2025 with a recorded mileage of about 49,000. The notes included one as follows: “Offside Rear undertray not fully secure” I find that consistent with other evidence that the accident had damaged the underside of the car. By the final response dated 28 April 2025, Admiral said that its salvage company would pay Mr A £481.00 for the damaged windscreen including £100.00 for distress and inconvenience.

-- 4 of 5 --

I don’t condone such damage, and I will come back to the issue of distress and inconvenience. However, I haven’t seen enough evidence that Mr A suffered a financial loss for the windscreen. More recently, another garage has written another estimate of about £5,500.00 for repairs. Notwithstanding that Mr A considers that there is evidence that the car was economic to repair, I’ve said that I can’t make any findings on any of the following complaints: • that Admiral’s approved repairer had over-priced repairs • that Admiral had written off the car • that Admiral had sent the car to its salvage company • that Admiral was responsible for delay before the January 2025 complaint • that Admiral should follow the alternative of repairing the accident damage • that Admiral should compensate Mr A for his cost of repairing accident damage in February 2025. It follows that I don’t find it fair and reasonable to direct Admiral to reimburse Mr A for the February 2025 battery check or to pay for a further battery check. Admiral’s engineers considered that the car had structural damage, so it was in salvage category S. Mr A hasn’t provided enough evidence from an “Appropriately Qualified Person” under the relevant Code of Practice to show that the car wasn’t in category S. So I don’t find it fair and reasonable to direct Admiral to change that categorisation. Coming back to the issue of distress and inconvenience, I’ve thought about Admiral’s repairer’s failure to provide evidence of a battery check, and its salvage company’s acceptance of responsibility for damage to the windscreen. I’ve thought about the nature and duration of the impact of those shortcomings on Mr A at an already difficult time for him. I’ve also thought about Admiral’s attempts to put things right by its payment of £125.00 and its salvage company’s payment of £100.00 for distress and inconvenience. Overall I’m satisfied that those payments were fair and reasonable and in line with what I would otherwise have directed Admiral to pay under our published guidelines on compensation for distress and inconvenience. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t direct Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited to do any more in response to this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --