Talk:Admiral Group

Fair use rationale for Image:Daimondlogo.png

Image:Daimondlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Admirallogo.png

Image:Admirallogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Belllogo.png

Image:Belllogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speed courses

The article contained the following paragraph:

"In November 2012, Admiral were criticised by the police for increasing insurance premiums for vehicle drivers who had opted to take an educational course on speed awareness in place of receiving penalty points on their licence. Although the police did not treat these courses as convictions, Admiral Group companies had chosen to take them into consideration as their statistics showed drivers who had attended a speed awareness course were an increased risk."

References

In my view this information is properly sourced and therefore really should stay. Dormskirk (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight. Its a non-story. People in the UK who get caught speeding generally get a choice of speed awareness or points on the license (depending on circumstances). Either way they are caught speeding and people who break speed limits are an increased risk of having or being involved in an accident - so increased insurance risk for car insurers. Every car insurance company if they know you break speed limits will adjust your premium accordingly, conviction or not. The police dont particularly like it as if someone knows their insurance is going to go up massively might be more inclined to challenge the speeding ticket - more paperwork for the police etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point: what I find interesting about the BBC article is that Cumbria Constabulary and South Yorkshire Police say that the courses do not lead to increased premiums but nevertheless Admiral have been increasing them. It would be good to find some reliable sources confirming that other insurers are also increasing premiums. Dormskirk (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Unlikely really, the reasons why insurers raise premiums are deliberately kept opaque - in order to deter people challanging them too much. Its just not interesting news unless there is a specific hook. Its a non-story and only hit the news because people complained specifically about Admiral (one of the largest vehicle insurers in the UK) doing it. Your best bet would be trade industry papers. The BBC article is actually surprisingly non-judgemental. The other take-away is that the Police were caught promising things they had no authority to deliver, no legal authority to enforce, and were entirely misleading. Why private companies increase their premiums is absolutely none of the police's business. Even in a non-fault accident (see here for an explanation), you will find a lot of insurers will increase premiums as people who are in accidents, tend to have more accidents. The 'over compensating' effect - people lose confidence, act more cautiously etc. That gets challenged more often, and an insurer will likely reverse it, but you will get the 'there are a number of factors that lead to increased premiums' speech first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, the 'undue weight' comment above is because the article really needs expansion. No mention of the awards is received for example the best companies to work for - which it has been in since the beginning I think, see here and here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph again given the concerns with undue weight. Lmatt (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What a terrible article

"Engelhardt" is mentioned early on, but WHO IS IT? Henry Engelhardt is finally mentioned as the leader of a management buyout, then as someone stepping down. Why not mention the names of the founders in 1991? Then we could see Engelhardt and his buddies. Haryadoon1 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now linked to the article on Henry Engelhardt in the first line of the history section. If you think you can improve the article, with reliable independent sources, then please do so. Dormskirk (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed article updates - COI

Hello,

I work for Admiral Group and noticed the article appears out of date in places. I have also noted the previous discussion on the Talk page noting that the article needs improvements.

I’d like to contribute to improving the article, but as I have a conflict of interest I want to be transparent and approach this in a way that respects Wikipedia’s norms and the spirit of independent, community-led editing. To that end, I’m proposing changes here for neutral review rather than making edits directly.

Below I’ve outlined suggested updates with supporting sources. I’d be grateful if a neutral editor could review the wording and citations, and flag anything that should be adjusted, omitted, or handled differently.

Thank you for taking the time to review my suggestions.

Done Fiske (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed updates (COI edit request)

1. Update the infobox to reflect the correct Chairperson

The article currently lists Annette Court as Chair. Annette Court was succeeded by Mike Rogers at Admiral’s AGM on 27 April 2023 (effective 28 April 2023 per press reporting). If helpful, Admiral’s regulatory news announcement also describes the planned succession.

Requested change (infobox):

• From: Annette Court
• To: Mike Rogers

2. Add the acquisition of More Than (RSA UK direct personal lines) to the History section

The article’s history section does not currently reflect Admiral’s agreement to acquire RSA’s UK direct Personal Lines operations (including the More Than brand) in December 2023.

Suggested addition (History):

In December 2023, Admiral agreed to acquire RSA Insurance UK’s home and pet insurance business, including the ‘More Than’ brand, in a deal worth up to £115 million. The acquisition was completed in April 2024.

3. Add the acquisition of Flock to the History section

The article’s history section also does not currently reflect Admiral’s recent agreement to acquire commercial fleet insurtech Flock in February 2026.

Suggested addition (History):

In February 2026, Admiral announced an agreement to acquire commercial fleet insurer Flock for £80 million, subject to regulatory approval.

4. Add “Services” to the infobox

The infobox currently does not include a “Services” field. Pages of comparable insurers often include this. Based on Admiral’s business lines (motor, household/home, pet etc) that can be found in the company's most recent audited annual report on I propose adding the below, but I would welcome feedback and suggestions from editors on how to best approach this.

Proposed changes (infobox):

• Services: Motor insurance ; Home insurance; Travel insurance; Pet Insurance; Personal lending

References

Admiral WikiRequests S (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Fiske (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Now updated. Dormskirk (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Dormskirk and @Fiske, thank you so much for reviewing and implementing the changes I requested, much appreciated. Admiral WikiRequests S (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed article update - COI 26.03.26

Hello,

I’m an employee for Admiral Group and I have recently contributed proposals to improve this Wikipedia article which were approved with the support of the community. I’m very thankful for the neutral review and I was hoping to continue working to improve the article where possible.

Admiral has recently released it’s annual report which has an updated number for employee figures that I was hoping we could update.

It would be great to get the thoughts of the editorial community around whether these changes are suitable or if they would need slight repositioning.

1. Update the lead section to reflect most recent employee figure and update the inaccessible citation

The article currently states that the Group employs “more than 10,000” people. However, the most recent figure reported in the audited Annual Report is more than 15,000 employees. In addition, the source currently cited for the 10,000 figure appears to be no longer accessible, so this would seem to merit an update.

Requested change (lead section):

• From: The group employs more than 10,000 people across its brands.

• To: The Group employs more than 15,000 people across its brands.

Admiral WikiRequests S (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Updated and figure moved to the infobox which is more normal. Dormskirk (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this so quickly @Dormskirk, very much appreciated Admiral WikiRequests S (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia photograph update 13.04.26

Hello,

I’m an employee of Admiral Group and have previously proposed a number of improvements to this article, which were approved by editors. I remain very grateful for that support.

I wanted to suggest one further possible improvement for editors’ consideration.

The article currently includes a photograph of the Tŷ Admiral building which appears to be around ten years old. I wanted to ask whether editors might consider replacing it with a more recent image that I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

For transparency, I should note that I am still awaiting confirmation from the Wikimedia Response Team in relation to the release process.

The image I am proposing is available here: File:Admiral HQ image.jpg.

I would be very grateful for editors’ views on whether this image would represent an improvement to the article, or whether an alternative image might be more appropriate. Admiral WikiRequests S (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: I don't see why not. If something doesn't work out with your VRT release, and the new image is deleted, we'll just switch back to the old one. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @MediaKyle, much appreciated. Admiral WikiRequests S (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)