Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-5867777

The complaint Mr C complains about the price quoted by Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited (“Admiral”) to renew his pet insurance policy. What happened Mr C received a quote to renew his policy. He then contacted Admiral to inform them his pet dog had been neutered and Admiral then issued a revised quote which was higher than the original quote. Mr C says this increase was as a direct result of his dog being neutered and was in addition to the general annual price increase. Mr C says the price increase contradicts widely accepted advice from various organisations that neutering is recommended to improve a dog’s health and temperament, thereby reducing potential health risks and, consequently, the risk to insurers. Mr C says there is no reference in the policy terms and conditions that the price would increase if his dog was neutered. Mr C says it’s unfair that measures taken to reduce risk should lead to a price increase. Admiral responded and explained they’d checked the pricing calculation, and the quote Mr C had received was correct. They said neutering status was a rating factor and also set out other factors which they take into account when pricing a policy. They explained they couldn’t provide more detailed explanations on how they rate a policy as this was commercially sensitive. Our investigator looked into things for Mr C. He thought Admiral hadn’t treated Mr C unfairly in relation to the pricing. Mr C disagreed so the matter has come to me for a 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. Having done so, I’ve decided not to uphold the complaint. I understand Mr C will be disappointed by this but I’ll explain why I have made this decision. The role of this service when looking at complaints about insurance pricing isn’t to tell a business what they should charge or to determine a price for the insurance they offer. This is a commercial judgement and for them to decide. But we can look to see whether we agree a consumer has been treated fairly – so is there anything which demonstrates they’ve been treated differently or less favourably. If we think someone has been treated unfairly, we can set out what we think is right to address this unfairness. I can see Mr C paid a premium of £709.14 in 2024 and he then received a quote for £780 in 2025. Mr C’s concern though, and what forms the basis of his complaint, is that after he informed Admiral his dog had been neutered, Admiral revised the quote to £1,025.76. This is around 31% more than the original renewal quote, with the only change being Mr C’s pet dog’s neutered status. Mr C says various veterinary professionals and animal welfare organisations recommend neutering and how this should reduce the risk to insurers. So, I understand why Mr C is concerned about the price increase.

-- 1 of 3 --

Admiral have provided me with confidential business sensitive information to explain how Mr C’s price increase was calculated, and more specifically, how the neutered status had an impact on the price. I’m afraid I can’t share this with Mr C because it’s commercially sensitive, but I’ve checked it carefully. And I’m satisfied the revised price Mr C was quoted has been calculated correctly and fairly and I’ve seen no evidence that other Admiral customers in Mr C’s position will have been charged a lower premium. As mentioned above, I can’t provide specific detail about Admiral’s risk model, but I can see that neutered status is a rating factor applied by Admiral. The information shows how this factor was assessed and the impact this had on the price. I acknowledge Mr C’s points about findings made by veterinary professionals and animal welfare organisations, but it’s for a business to decide what risks they’re prepared to cover and how much weight to attach to those risks - different insurers will apply different factors. That’s not to say an insurer offering a higher premium has made an error compared to an insurer offering a cheaper premium – but rather, it reflects the different approach they’ve decided to take to risk. This similarly applies to rating factors and loadings. It’s for an insurer to decide what rating factors and loadings to apply to a policy. In this case, I’ve seen how Mr C’s pet’s neutered status has impacted the price as well as Admiral’s reasons for this – and I can’t say they’ve acted unreasonably or treated Mr C unfairly. I think it’s also important to make the point that, insurers rate a policy on many factors - one such factor is claims experience. This means insurers will consider the risk presented by a customer and take into account their claims experience for other customers with similar characteristics and profile. Where such claim statistics demonstrate specific trends, it’s not unusual or unfair for insurers to reflect this in their risk assessment. And where such trends demonstrate an increased risk, the price will reflect this. I’ve seen how Mr C’s policy was rated based on his dog being neutered and the loadings which have led to the price increase. This forms part of Admiral’s pricing model so it applies to all policies. I think that’s important here as it demonstrates the pricing model used to calculate Mr C’s revised premium was no different to what was used for any other customer in the same circumstances. Admiral have also provided evidence which shows how their view of risk changed and the specific ratings which were impacted by this. Admiral have described how they refreshed their rating system to more accurately reflect the expected costs they underwrite and how this led to Mr C’s premium increasing. So in short, they have treated all customers the same with the pricing structure and Mr C hasn’t been treated differently or unfairly when they chose to change their approach. Mr C says there has been a lack of transparency in the policy terms and conditions as they should’ve highlighted that neutering a dog, leads to a price increase. I acknowledge Mr C’s points, but in the case of pet insurance, I think there are some clear factors which will, generally, increase the price. This can be a pet’s age (which is referenced in the policy terms and conditions) and also previous claims. But, where an increase relates to broader claims experience, these factors change frequently. So, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a business to list all possible factors which could influence a price as a consequence of their claims experience. I do appreciate Mr C will want to know more detail around what specific factors have led to the price increase and he was left frustrated at not receiving a clear explanation for this. Pricing is an area where the information which sits behind an insurer’s explanation will often be commercially sensitive. So, I don’t think Admiral have acted unreasonably in not providing Mr C with details of the specific ratings and loadings used to calculate the price.

-- 2 of 3 --

I understand why Mr C has complained, and I hope he feels reassured that I’ve checked the pricing information from Admiral. But I can’t say they’ve made a mistake or treated Mr C unfairly. I wish to reassure Mr C I’ve read and considered everything he has sent in, but if I haven’t mentioned a particular point or piece of evidence, it isn’t because I haven’t seen it or thought about it. It’s just that I don’t feel I need to reference it to explain my decision. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy and is a reflection of the informal nature of our service. My final decision For the reasons I have given, it is my final decision that the complaint is not upheld. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026. Paviter Dhaddy Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --