Admiral Insurance Help

unclecrispin

Thanks for your replies everyone.

I think what I'm going to do is ring them up and explain that I just can't afford it, I'm a student etc and if anything it's going to be worse for them because I will be telling all my friends not to use them.

It's not the £45 fee I don't agree with, it's the fact they're adding that to 3 months unused insurance that they refuse to give me a cut of. I am only asking to not have to pay any more, I accept I won't get any money back off of them for the 12 months premium.

And I believe I have told the whole story here, my first car was written off but I sold the second one, and it is because of the first crash that they won't give me any money, because it is still on the same years policy.

Thanks again for all your replies

Kilty_2

sirmarcus wrote: »

Fair enough and good for you.

I can't really comment with regards insurance companies auto-renewing insurance as I have been fortunate enough to never have experienced this to date; although I will be keeping an eye on this going forward. However, I must advise that I still perceive this as being a con by the insurance cos..... most people, due to apathy, will not read the small print of their T&Cs and the insurance companies know this. This is why they are auto-renewing policies to catch people out. The only way to stop this practise is to escalate and complain.

Both auto-renewal notices I've had said very clearly on the very first page of the renewal quote "WE WILL COLLECT THIS AMOUNT FROM YOUR ORIGINAL PAYMENT CARD ON xx/xx/xxxx"

Not exactly hidden

Flyboy152

unclecrispin wrote: »

Thanks for your replies everyone.

I think what I'm going to do is ring them up and explain that I just can't afford it, I'm a student etc and if anything it's going to be worse for them because I will be telling all my friends not to use them.

It's not the £45 fee I don't agree with, it's the fact they're adding that to 3 months unused insurance that they refuse to give me a cut of. I am only asking to not have to pay any more, I accept I won't get any money back off of them for the 12 months premium.

And I believe I have told the whole story here, my first car was written off but I sold the second one, and it is because of the first crash that they won't give me any money, because it is still on the same years policy.

Thanks again for all your replies

But you can't ask for money back on something that you have used, for the purpose which it was intended. There is no unused portion.

unclecrispin

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But you can't ask for money back on something that you have used, for the purpose which it was intended. There is no unused portion.

But there is an unused portion, I haven't been using their insurance for 3 months, and if I hadn't crashed I would be getting that money back, less a small charge, for those months unused. But because I have crashed they won't give me any money, fair enough, I'm just not happy theyre also charging me £45 for the honour of cancelling aswell

Flyboy152

unclecrispin wrote: »

But there is an unused portion, I haven't been using their insurance for 3 months, and if I hadn't crashed I would be getting that money back, less a small charge, for those months unused. But because I have crashed they won't give me any money, fair enough, I'm just not happy theyre also charging me £45 for the honour of cancelling aswell

No there isn't. You made a claim on the policy, it was therefore fully used.

vaio

It’s not fully used, there was 3 months of cover left which has a value.

Flyboy152

vaio wrote: »

It’s not fully used, there was 3 months of cover left which has a value.

If a claim was made, it was fully used.

mountainofdebt

vaio wrote: »

isn't that exactly the position he is in? But with the added bonus of a £56 charge?

I was responding to trickybd9's post, not the OP's - that's the trouble when another isssue is posted on the same thread.

unclecrispin wrote: »

Thanks for your replies everyone.

I think what I'm going to do is ring them up and explain that I just can't afford it, I'm a student etc and if anything it's going to be worse for them because I will be telling all my friends not to use them.

Don't wish to sound rude, but do you think that will make Admiral change their minds? At the end of the day, you only see how good your insurance co is when you make a claim and up to that point most people, especially students, go on cost.

unclecrispin wrote: »

But there is an unused portion, I haven't been using their insurance for 3 months, and if I hadn't crashed I would be getting that money back, less a small charge, for those months unused. But because I have crashed they won't give me any money, fair enough, I'm just not happy theyre also charging me £45 for the honour of cancelling aswell

As far as I know, when you make a claim part way through your policy year, especially if the car is a write off then the remaining premuim outstanding for the whole year is deducted from the amount that's paid out. So I guess the important question is is the policy you tried to cancel a new policy for your new car or did you just alter the details of the vehicle on the policy on which you claimed?

If its the later then I'm not surprised that they won't repay you the money that you think they owe you.

vaio

vaio wrote: »

It’s not fully used, there was 3 months of cover left which has a value.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If a claim was made, it was fully used.

In my little world “fully used” means what it says.

A fully used can of beer is empty, a fully used cigarette is just ash and a fully used insurance policy would provide no more cover.

This policy still provided cover, there is a cost to the insurance company associated with providing that cover and the OP is arguing that if they don’t need the cover then they should get some of the savings the insurance company makes by not providing it.

Seems reasonable to me

iamana1ias

vaio wrote: »

In my little world “fully used” means what it says.

A fully used can of beer is empty, a fully used cigarette is just ash and a fully used insurance policy would provide no more cover.

This policy still provided cover, there is a cost to the insurance company associated with providing that cover and the OP is arguing that if they don’t need the cover then they should get some of the savings the insurance company makes by not providing it.

Seems reasonable to me

Funny how no insurer operates that way, isn't it :think:

:rotfl::rotfl:

Let's take the following scenario as an example.

Policy costs £520 with a £250 excess. A week after being taken out there is an accident which causes £4000 of damage - the same value as the car. The insurers pay out £3750 for the car.

By your reckoning the insurers should also refund the policyholder £510 because the car was only covered for a week. So for £10 payment they should pay out £3530 (£3750-£250)???

Could you make that business model fly??!