Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6230212

The complaint Mr K has complained about the way Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited has handled a claim he made on a travel insurance policy. He is being represented in making this complaint, however, for ease, I will just be referring to Mr K in this decision. What happened Mr K was on a trip abroad in June 2025 when he missed his flight home. He therefore made a claim on the policy for missed departure. Admiral says that it can’t progress the claim until Mr K provides some outstanding documents and agrees to a telephone interview. Mr K has made a number of separate complaints during the claims process. In response, Admiral accepted there had been some poor service, for which it has paid a total of £220 compensation for distress and inconvenience. However, it maintained its position in relation to the claim. Our investigator thought Admiral had acted reasonably in asking for the remaining documents and requiring a phone interview. He also thought that £220 was a reasonable and proportionate level of compensation for the impact of the service issues. Mr K disagrees with the investigator’s view and so the complaint has been passed 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. I’ve carefully considered the obligations placed on Admiral by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Its ‘Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook’ (ICOBS) includes the requirement for Admiral to handle claims promptly and fairly, and to not unreasonably decline a claim. The ombudsman was established to be a quick and informal service. This doesn’t mean we apply any less rigour or care in reaching our decisions. But it does mean that we might not respond to each and every point that has been raised. Mr K has made detailed submissions in support of his complaint. Although I will not be addressing them all, I would like to assure him that I have read and considered everything he has provided. Mr K has raised multiple complaints about Admiral, including: • Writing to him from a no-reply mailbox

-- 1 of 3 --

• Grouping his complaints together instead of registering each one as a new complaint • Lack of response in not being contacted when he was told he would be • Deleting his bank details • The word ‘null’ being included in his address • ‘ghosting’ by senior management In common with our investigator’s approach, I am not going to address every individual issue of dissatisfaction that Mr K has raised. These service issues have come about due to the protracted nature of the claims process. So, instead, I will focus on the main issues and what needs to happen for the claim to move forward. Mr K has complained that Admiral repeatedly asked for the same information, even after he had already provided it. Our investigator has previously set out a detailed timeline of what was asked for, and what he provided and when (including an amendment to include a bank statement which was originally omitted). It is the case that Admiral did at times repeat requests for information that had already been provided, which was below the standard of service Mr K had the right to expect. Whilst he says he is unclear what Admiral is asking for, by 20 August 2025 it had confirmed which documents it was still awaiting. It had said to him on 7 July 2025 that it can be quicker and easier to deal with some issues over the phone, rather than by email. It is possible that matters might not have become so entrenched if Mr K had felt able to communicate with the claims team by phone. He says he’s been told that some documents he provided aren’t in the correct format, even though he was able to upload them successfully to the portal, and he hasn’t been told which ones these are. However, when asking for additional information in an email dated 9 July 2025, Admiral said: ‘Please ensure that any photos you send are unedited (please do not change the name, size or formats of the files) and are sent as attachments (please do not insert into the text of the email) to ensure that our systems can properly process these.’ I’ve seen that some of the photos provided have some of the information cropped off due to their formatting. In relation to the multiple service issues, including repeated information requests, overall, I’m satisfied that the £220 offered is reasonable compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. I’ve seen evidence that these compensation payments were raised and authorised. Mr K knows which bank account details he provided. He told Admiral he’d checked his bank statements and that he hadn’t received any payment. However, he subsequently told this service that he’d need further details about when and to what account payments were made, so that he could check. I appreciate he has more recently said that he’s checked his bank statements for the period July to September 2025. However, on balance, I find it more likely than not that Mr K received at least the two BACS payments totalling £170 made in July 2025. Admiral has asked Mr K to provide proof of non-receipt, in the form of bank statements, before it looks into this issue further. I consider that approach to be reasonable in the circumstances. Based on the evidence provided so far, I disagree with Mr K that the burden of proof should be with Admiral. There was also a cheque for £50 which was issued as Admiral had deleted his bank details. Although Mr K says it has admitted to deleting his bank details by mistake, that is not the case. They were deliberately deleted as Mr K has sent the details in an email rather than via a secure method. I’m unclear whether that cheque was cancelled and reissued as a BACS

-- 2 of 3 --

payment. However, Admiral can look into that as well, once Mr K provides his bank statements. Of course, if it transpires that payment hasn’t been received, I would expect Admiral to resolve that as quickly as possible. Admiral has said that it needs Mr K to provide the outstanding information and to then conduct a phone interview with him to assist with validating the claim. As set out above, I’m satisfied that, although it has sometimes repeated requests for documentation, it is reasonable for it to ask for any information it needs to validate the claim. If he is unsure about what it considers to be outstanding, he should liaise with Admiral’s claims team about what is required. He’s talked about being trapped in a circular loop of sending documents which Admiral either loses or says are incorrectly formatted. I appreciate he feels any failure lies solely with Admiral’s inability to process and store information. However, I’m not persuaded that the available evidence shows that and I’m satisfied there is still some information that Mr K is yet to provide, or provide in the required format. So, whilst I understand it is frustrating to Mr K, this is his chance to escape that loop and move things on. If there are any documents Mr K is unable to provide, then he would need to explain why, hopefully with supporting evidence. As long as he provides a reasonable explanation, this shouldn’t prevent the telephone interview from taking place, as the matter could be discussed further then. Mr K doesn’t want to have a phone interview. Whilst he would prefer it to be conducted by email, I’m not persuaded that an email exchange would constitute an interview, which normally means having a conversation in real time. And I’m not sure it would elicit the clarity that Admiral is seeking. Mr K has been dealing with Admiral by email, which, I’m sure he would agree, hasn’t gone particularly well. He also mentioned in his complaint form how he really struggled to compose emails. He says that his anxiety has been exacerbated by the handling of his claim and therefore he requires reasonable adjustments to be made. I appreciate that he has found the process difficult and I would expect Admiral to take his needs into account. However, it would need to balance those needs against the wider issue of resolving the claim. Overall, I’m satisfied that the request for a phone interview is reasonable. Mr K could explain to Admiral how the process could be made easier for him, however, he would need to agree to attend a phone interview for the claim to progress. Otherwise, it would be reasonable for Admiral to close the claim on the basis that Mr K hasn’t provided all the help it needs to progress the claim, as set out in the policy terms. In summary, I’m satisfied that the £220 offered by Admiral for the distress and inconvenience caused by service issues is reasonable. I also consider it is fair for Admiral to require further information, followed by a phone interview, in order to progress the claim. It follows that I do not uphold the complaint. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I do not uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Carole Clark Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --