Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6171082

The complaint Miss U complains that Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited is responsible for mishandling her claim on a motor insurance policy. What happened The subject matter of the insurance, the claim and the complaint is a car, first registered in 2016. According to its MOT history, the car passed a test in mid-December 2023 with a recorded mileage of about 69,000. Miss U acquired the car no later than early January 2024, the date of its most recent V5 registration document. For the year from May 2024, Miss U had the car insured on a comprehensive policy with Admiral. Unfortunately, Miss U reported to Admiral that an incident had damaged the car in early August 2024. One of Admiral’s approved repairers collected the car from Miss U’s address. However Admiral said the car was a total loss. On 13 August 2024, Miss U told Admiral that she wanted to keep the damaged car. Admiral’s salvage company took possession of the damaged car from the repairer on14 August 2024. On 16 August 2024, Miss U collected the car from the salvage company. By September 2024, Miss U had complained to Admiral (“the September 2024 complaint”) including that it had unfairly treated the car as a total loss and that it was responsible for poor communication and delay in deciding the salvage category of the damaged car. By a final response dated 26 September 2024, Admiral accepted the complaint about communication and delay in deciding the salvage category. Admiral said it was sending Miss U a cheque for £100.00. By November 2024, Miss U had complained to Admiral (the November 2024 complaint”) including that its delay in responding to her with regards to retaining the car had caused her to take time off work and to travel two hours to collect it from the salvage yard. By a final response dated 21 November 2024, Admiral accepted that it hadn’t called Miss U back on 13 August 2024 about the destination of the damaged car. Admiral said it was sending Miss U a cheque for £150.00.

-- 1 of 4 --

Miss U got a mechanic to repair the car in mid- December 2024. According to its MOT history, the car passed a test in mid-December 2024 with a recorded mileage of about 73,000. By an email dated 1 February 2025, Miss U replied to Admiral, asking it to reimburse her lost working time on 16 August 2024 and a later DVLA fine. Admiral made further payments to Miss U. Miss U didn’t bring the September 2024 complaint to us within six months after the final response dated 26 September 2024. Miss U didn’t bring the November 2024 complaint to us within six months after the final response dated 21 November 2024. In October 2025, Miss U complained to Admiral that it was responsible for mishandling the car in August 2024 and it hadn’t been the same since. Admiral passed that complaint to the salvage company. By a final response dated 11 December 2025, the salvage company turned down that complaint. Miss U asked us to investigate. Our investigator said that he couldn’t investigate the complaint about the salvage company collecting the car. Our investigator didn’t recommend that the remainder of the complaint should be upheld. He didn’t think that Admiral or its salvage company had done anything wrong. Miss U disagreed with the investigator’s opinion. She asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. She says, in summary, that: • Admiral’s approved repairer didn’t advise her of problems with the exhaust. • The repairer put yellow repair markings on the panels. • Admiral shouldn’t have treated the car as a write-off or sent it to the salvage agent. • The salvage agent put a large barcode sticker with strong adhesive across the windscreen. • The salvage company staff drove the car within the site. • Since recovering it from the salvage agent, the way the car drives has significantly changed and she no longer feels comfortable taking it on long trips. • In September 2024, the exhaust completely detached from the vehicle. 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 complaint

-- 2 of 4 --

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 and receives a final response, and the consumer doesn’t bring that complaint to us within six months, then we can’t investigate that complaint unless the firm consents or exceptional circumstances prevented the consumer from complying with the time limit. The 2024 final responses said that if Miss U didn’t refer her complaints to us, we wouldn’t have Admiral’s permission to consider them. Miss U didn’t refer the September 2024 complaint or the November 2024 complaint to us within the respective six-month time limits after each final response in September 2024 and November 2024. And Admiral hasn’t consented to us considering those complaints. Miss U has explained that she had to move out of her rented home. However, she was able to contact Admiral in February 2025. So I’m not persuaded me that exceptional circumstances prevented her from complying with the six-month time limits. So I can’t make any findings in this decision about the September 2024 complaint or the November 2024 complaint. That includes the revived complaints that Admiral shouldn’t have treated the car as a write-off or sent it to the salvage company. Also, in October 2025, Miss U completed our complaint form. She didn’t include any complaint about the salvage company using a bar-code sticker. So I can’t make any findings in this decision about that. I will refer to the balance of Miss U’s complaint as “this complaint”. This decision I accept that the repairer put yellow markings on the car. I consider that’s a normal way of marking up proposed repairs. I don’t consider that Admiral or its agents did anything wrong by making the markings. Admiral decided the car was a total loss. As Miss U decided to keep the damaged car, she became responsible for deciding the extent of repairs and/or removal of the markings. I accept that salvage company staff drove the car on its site, However, there’s not enough evidence that any of them damaged the car. I accept that the car’s exhaust fell off in about September 2024. I don’t consider that there’s enough evidence to say that Admiral or its agents had done anything to cause the exhaust to fall off. I accept that Miss U has lost confidence in the car and she feels that it is driving differently. However, the reported incident had damaged the car and Admiral had noted that any repair would include the need for checks of the suspension and wheel geometry. Admiral decided the car was a total loss. Miss M decided to keep it. So she became responsible for deciding the extent of repairs. Admiral wasn’t responsible for putting right the damage caused in the reported incident. Admiral wasn’t responsible for the extent or quality of Miss M’s mechanic’s repairs. I’ve noted that the car passed an MOT test in December 2024.

-- 3 of 4 --

I’ve also noted that the MOT certificate expired in December 2025 since when Miss U hasn’t submitted the car for another test. Overall, Miss U has fallen short of providing evidence that Admiral or its agents unfairly did anything to cause an issue with the safety or performance of the car or to increase her costs of repair. 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 Miss U to accept or reject my decision before 13 April 2026. Christopher Gilbert Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --