Admiral Insurance Help

Flyboy152

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

If you want to be pedantic, it is the premium that has been fully used.

mikey72

iamana1ias wrote: »

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??!

Your model of a £520 payment then they should pay out £3530 isn't a great improvement. (£3500 by my maths actually, unless you're taking off the excess twice, if it was a £4000 car)

mountainofdebt

I would have thought, in the example provided that the insurance company would have paid out

£4,000 - £250 (excess) - £510 (remaining premium for year ) = £3240

Otherwise anyone who paid for their insurance up front, in one payment, would be penalised against anyone who paid monthly.

vaio

iamana1ias wrote: »

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??!

Or take the same scenario but with a £10k car, accident happens, insurer pays £4k to get it repaired and the cover carries on for the next 51 weeks.

That 51 weeks costs the insurance company something to provide and if I decide I don’t want it then the insurance company saves money and it seems fair to me that I get some of those savings.

sirmarcus

OP....You are getting different advise and opinions on this thread.

I have given my advise as well and I'm glad to see, from your one of your earlier postings, that you were going to contact Admiral to to try to get your money back. I hope you are successful. In the event that you are not, I will suggest again that you escalate internally with Admiral and then use the FOS if they still won't pay up. The FOS won't cost you a penny and it is very easy to escalate your complaint to them. The FOS will also charge Admiral £500.

Good luck.

mikey72

Or the car driver hits and kills several pedestrians. Pay out hundreds of thousands to the families, and a few hundred to repair the car, and the insurance carries on for £520.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

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

The legal term is that as the policy has fulfiled its purpose the contract has been discharged by performance. That is why the full annual premium is due. I wouldn't hold your breath on decades of case law changing overnight.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Whether it's in the t&c's or not, inertia selling is no longer legal.


http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...egs/oft979.pdf

17. Forcing the deal
Including in marketing material an invoice or similar
document seeking payment which gives the consumer the
impression that he/she has already ordered the marketed
product when he/she has not.


29. Asking for payment when they didn’t ask
for the product
Demanding immediate or deferred payment for, or the
return or safekeeping of products supplied by the trader,
but not solicited by the consumer except where the product
is a substitute supplied in accordance with regulation 19(7)
of the Consumer Protection (distance selling) Regulations
2000 (this is known as inertia selling).

Automatic renewals are not inertia selling in this sense of the word.

It does not fall under section 17 as a renewal notice is not "marketing material".

It does not fall under section 29 as at inception the client agrees to the automatic renewal process as a means of extending the contract. Hence the automatic renewal invite wasn't "not solicited by the consumer" as they agreed to the process as part of their contract with the insurer.

In a nutshell, automatic renewals are an extension of an existing contract rather than the formation of a new one, hence those inertia selling rules posted above do not apply.

I know that you are aware of the FOS's contact details, why not give them a call and ask them if automatic renewal is "no longer legal"?

mikey72

And it's free advice.

FOS

open 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday

0800 0 234 567

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

The legal term is that as the policy has fulfiled its purpose the contract has been discharged by performance. That is why the full annual premium is due. I wouldn't hold your breath on decades of case law changing overnight.

It's getting a bit OT now but the contract was for a years cover and to pay any valid claims arising in that period. Surely the contract isn't fulfilled until the year is up?

Agree with you about the slow grinding of case law changes, I suppose that's why we have the FOS who look at what's fair rather than the strict legal position.