EUI Limited trading as Admiral · DRN-6158793

The complaint Miss S is unhappy with information recorded on her credit file by EUI Limited trading as Admiral, in relation to finance taken to fund a car insurance policy. What happened In May 2025 Miss S explained she received notice that her credit score had dropped, and a default had been added by Admiral. Miss S explained she was surprised, as she never knew an insurance policy or associated finance had been taken out. Miss S was unhappy with this and complained to Admiral. It issued a final response in September 2025. In summary, this explained it didn’t think it had done anything wrong. It said an insurance policy for Miss S automatically renewed in March 2025 and was financed. And it said it contacted Miss S by post and email about it. Admiral said there was no direct debit in place for the finance, so payment wasn’t taken. It said it contacted Miss S to explain this, but it remained unpaid, so a default was recorded. Miss S remained unhappy and referred the complaint to our service. She explained the car insured had been sold in October 2023. Miss S said she realised the policy had been taken out by a third-party person who I’ll refer to as C, that she no longer has contact with. She explained she realised the phone number and email address Admiral had on file never belonged to her. And she said she never received any correspondence from Admiral as she moved address. Miss S explained she hasn’t lost out financially because of what happened but has been very worried about her credit score. Our investigator issued a view. In summary, he said he didn’t think it was likely Miss S was aware of the finance. So, he didn’t think it was reasonable for Admiral to record information on her credit file about it. Miss S agreed with the view. Admiral didn’t agree. In summary, it said it had no means of verifying the details entered when an account was set up. It said Miss S didn’t let it know when she moved address. It said it followed its process. It said it was obligated to report accurate information. And it said it backdated the cancellation when it received evidence from Miss S. As Admiral remained unhappy, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable

-- 1 of 3 --

in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I think this complaint should be upheld. I’ll explain why. I should begin by explaining to both parties that I might not comment on every single point raised or every piece of evidence. I can assure Miss S and Admiral that I’ve carefully considered all of the information. But I’m going to focus my decision on what I consider to be the key facts and the crux of the complaint. What I need to consider in this case is whether it was reasonable for Admiral to record negative information on Miss S’s credit file. Having thought about this, I don’t think it was. I’ll explain why. Admiral explained the insurance policy was taken out in March 2021. It hasn’t provided a copy of the associated credit agreement from the time. So, I’m not persuaded this was most likely signed by Miss S. Nor have I seen she agreed to the terms and conditions. Admiral has provided a copy of the most recent credit agreement from 20 March 2025. This is not signed. Admiral hasn’t shown Miss S saw or agreed to the terms. I also haven’t seen she agreed for the finance to be renewed along with the associated policy. Admiral has shown the associated bank account the direct debit was set up from was in C’s name, not Miss S’s. It also showed the email provided when the finance was set up is in the name of a business. And I haven’t been shown the email is associated with Miss S. I’ve not seen evidence the phone number Admiral had on file was associated with Miss S. Miss S provided evidence the car insured was sold to trade in October 2023. This was a significant time prior to the latest finance agreement being set up. I’ve seen C was listed on the associated policy as a named driver. Thinking about all of this, I’m satisfied on balance that Miss S was not likely aware of the finance agreement, nor have I seen she entered the contract nor agreed to the terms and conditions. It follows I don’t think it’s reasonable Admiral recorded negative information on her credit file in relation to it. I’ve carefully thought about what Miss S said when she first complained to Admiral. But, on balance, this doesn’t change my opinion when considering things in the round. I’ve also considered that Admiral explained Miss S should’ve updated her address and let it know when she sold the car. But given I found she likely wasn’t aware of the finance agreement, it wouldn’t be reasonable to have expected her to do this. I have considered if any other award should be due. Miss S has confirmed she hasn’t lost out financially because of what happened. So, I don’t think Admiral needs to act on this specific point. I do think it must have been somewhat upsetting for Miss S to realise her credit score has dropped. But fortunately, she hasn’t shown this has disadvantaged her. Thinking about everything, I don’t think Miss S has been caused inconvenience to the point an award is due.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I instruct EUI Limited trading as Admiral to put things right by removing any information, including the default, from Miss S’s credit file in relation to this agreement. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. John Bower Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --