Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6199853

The complaint Mrs L complains that Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited have made a settlement offer following her escape of water claim that doesn’t cover the cost of restoring her property. What happened Mrs L held a buildings and contents insurance policy with Admiral, and she made a claim in November 2024 following the identification of a leak from her shower pump, a leak in her boiler, and a minor drip in her toilet bowl. The shower pump leak caused damage to several rooms with water coming through the ceiling into the kitchen underneath. Mrs L has complex health needs and can’t easily leave her house, so the claim journey has been complicated, and Admiral offered a cash settlement to complete the repairs. Mrs L has said that this offer isn’t enough to complete the repairs as she has a substantially higher quote from her own contactors to restore the property. One of our investigators looked into Mrs L’s complaint. She thought that Admiral had made a fair offer in respect of the damage but that they should pay £200 compensation for communication issues. Mrs L disagreed with our investigators view, and so the case came to me to review. 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. Mrs L made a previous complaint which looked at matters up until 11 June 2025, and this is a follow-on complaint, so I’m only considering matters from 12 June 2025 until the date of the final response which was 2 December 2025. That includes the cash settlement offer and service issues during that period. I have to consider whether Admiral have complied with the terms and conditions of the policy and acted fairly and reasonably. Having done so, I’m satisfied that the offer they have made is fair, but I agree with the investigator that compensation should be paid. I’ll explain why. Cash settlement offer. Admiral have made a settlement offer of £20,513.02 which they say represents the cost of the repairs if their own contractors completed them. They have made a payment of £19,913.02 to Mrs L’s bank account on 9 December 2025 which is the settlement offer, minus the £600 policy excess. They have also agreed an additional sum for alternative accommodation while repairs are taking place and have paid £5000 to Mrs L in respect of this.

-- 1 of 4 --

Mrs L says that Admiral haven’t inspected the property fully and that the repairs don’t include the electrics in the property which are unsafe as a result of the leak. She has also been frustrated by missed appointments and miscommunication. Mrs L has had two quotes for the repairs from local contractors, one for £43,896.80 minus VAT and one for £42,433.85, so she says she will be unable to restore the kitchen to pre loss condition for the cash settlement offered. So firstly, I’ve looked at the policy terms to see if it is fair for Admiral to offer a cash settlement. The policy says: How we will settle your claim We will decide how to settle your claim. We will either pay the cost of the rebuilding, repairing or replacing any damaged parts of the building covered under this policy or pay you a cash settlement for the same amount it would have cost us to use our chosen supplier for a necessary repair or replacement. The cash settlement may be less than the cost of rebuilding, repairing or replacing the damaged part. This term does allow Admiral, at their discretion, to cash settle a claim, and to restrict any cash payment to the price their own contractors would charge. However, given the large disparity between Admiral’s costings and Mrs L’s quotes, I’ve then looked at whether the quotes provided are comparable and include all of the work that needs completing to restore the property to its previous condition. Mrs L’s contractors have provided a detailed breakdown of costs, and Admiral say that they have calculated their quote as a desk top quotation, using this breakdown of works provided by Mrs L’s contractor to ensure that it is comparable. Having seen and compared all the schedules, they do seem to cover the same work, including but not limited to ceilings, kitchen units, tiling, flooring, woodwork and painting and all the electrics which Mrs L was concerned about – including a new consumer unit. So, I’m satisfied that they are for the same work. I’ve then thought about where there might be a disparity in the figures. The main cost that I can see that doesn’t look justified is the figure in Mrs L’s quote for the new kitchen cupboards. One of her quotes includes £17,500 for the kitchen cupboards and worksurfaces, and the other includes £15,000. These seem very high for the number of cupboards that need replacing, which consists of three 1000mm wall units, two 1000mm base units, two 500mm base units, some cornicing and plinths and 5.5m of laminated worksurfaces. It seems to me that this accounts for a large portion of the difference between the quotes and seems wholly disproportionate to the number of cupboards required. This makes me question the reliability of Mrs L’s quotes. Having said that, Admiral have not had access to the house to be able to fully examine and record the damage and have been reliant on Mrs L’s quote and a number of photos and videos taken by her when undertaking the quotation process. This also concerns me as there may be items that have not been accounted for in that quote, as they aren’t visible to Admiral. With that in mind, Admiral have offered to revisit the property and reinspect the damage to double check the work schedule and prepare a further quote if necessary.

-- 2 of 4 --

I appreciate that Mrs L’s relationship with Admiral has been affected during this claim, and she is reluctant to have surveyors in the house. However, I think this is a fair request by Admiral who seem to be trying to do the right thing and ensure the work is all completed. I think this offers a practical way forward. It protects Mrs L from the discovery of additional damage once work starts and after a cash settlement had been agreed and provides for an up-to-date assessment of costs. If Mrs L doesn’t want to allow Admiral to undertake a proper examination of the property, then I don’t think I can fairly say that they should increase their offer. Alternatively, Admiral is still willing, if Mrs L wishes, to complete all the repairs on the schedule themselves, and the cash settlement would need to be returned. This is equally a fair offer. Communication Mrs L has been open about her vulnerabilities and has asked for adjustments to communication to accommodate this. I agree with the investigator that Admiral could have done more to explain what was happening with the cash settlement offer and can understand why there was confusion caused and Mrs L felt distressed. It’s now been made clear that although they have paid the funds over to her, this was subject to any further evidence that might indicate an increase would be appropriate. Admiral have offered £200 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience this has caused Mrs L, and I think this is fair as the distress was short term and Admiral have now cleared up he confusion. Putting things right In order to put things right Admiral need to pay the £200 compensation offered. In order to move the claim forward, Mrs L needs to let Admiral know whether she wants them to: • complete the work (with the return of the settlement) • revisit the property to review the damage against the existing schedule and requote if appropriate. or whether she wants to just keep the cash settlement already paid. If Mrs L does use her own contractors, there will still be the issue of any VAT payment which Admiral would have to consider on receipt of VAT invoices. My final decision My final decision is that I’m upholding Mrs L’s complaint about Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited and directing them to put things right as above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs L to accept or reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Joanne Ward Ombudsman

-- 3 of 4 --

-- 4 of 4 --