Admiral car insurance charging for cancelling within 7-day cooling off

notafan

I cancelled my policy with admiral today, was due to renew on 14th.

No charge and she seemed surprised when i asked her if there was any charges.

Just the usual send the certificate back and questions about the drivers having any accidents or claims.

Were really nice about it actually.

SallyAnne

One should be extra vigilant when dealing with Admiral. Their price might be a tad cheaper but their service is atrocious. I was stopped for Driving Without Due Care but the police officer noticed modifications which transpired as undeclared when he checked with Admiral and subsequently asked them to revoke my insurance. I was then charged with Driving Without Insurance and impounded my car. I have been to court pleading that I could not have been driving without insurance because, I was stopped at the time and the insurance was revoked only after I was stopped. To prove my point I requested a letter from Admiral stating exactly when they were requested to revoke my insurance and they have refused. Apart from my impound fees, I am facing a considerable fine and points on my driving licence.

dacouch

SallyAnne wrote: »

One should be extra vigilant when dealing with Admiral. Their price might be a tad cheaper but their service is atrocious. I was stopped for Driving Without Due Care but the police officer noticed modifications which transpired as undeclared when he checked with Admiral and subsequently asked them to revoke my insurance. I was then charged with Driving Without Insurance and impounded my car. I have been to court pleading that I could not have been driving without insurance because, I was stopped at the time and the insurance was revoked only after I was stopped. To prove my point I requested a letter from Admiral stating exactly when they were requested to revoke my insurance and they have refused. Apart from my impound fees, I am facing a considerable fine and points on my driving licence.

Surely if you have modified your car and to such a state that the police checked with the Insurer about them. Then it is more your own fault for not declaring them to Admiral rather than being Admirals fault.

You would find many companies would void / revoke your Insurance if you had modifications without declaring them

mikey72

dacouch wrote: »

Surely if you have modified your car and to such a state that the police checked with the Insurer about them. Then it is more your own fault for not declaring them to Admiral rather than being Admirals fault.

You would find many companies would void / revoke your Insurance if you had modifications without declaring them

Whilst I mostly agree with you here (for a change), if the police requested Admiral to revoke the insurance at the roadside, purely so they could then impound the car and prosecute for Driving without Insurance, the question would have to be asked if they would do that normally, or simply increase the premium, similar to the outcome if the poster had been involved in an accident.

anotherbaldrick

mikey72 wrote: »

Whilst I mostly agree with you here (for a change), if the police requested Admiral to revoke the insurance at the roadside, purely so they could then impound the car and prosecute for Driving without Insurance, the question would have to be asked if they would do that normally, or simply increase the premium, similar to the outcome if the poster had been involved in an accident.

What the Police are saying is that the insurance was not lawfully obtained, the question on the application form regarding has the vehicle been modified was not correctly addressed . They therefore did not accept the insurance as meeting the statutory requirement . Mind you if you do that as well as driving without due care and attention you deserve to get done.

PS I have just renewed with Admiral, my premium has hardly gone up at all. Perhaps they are cherry picking !

dacouch

mikey72 wrote: »

Whilst I mostly agree with you here (for a change), if the police requested Admiral to revoke the insurance at the roadside, purely so they could then impound the car and prosecute for Driving without Insurance, the question would have to be asked if they would do that normally, or simply increase the premium, similar to the outcome if the poster had been involved in an accident.

It's extremely unusual for the Police to check whether a policyholder has declared modifications or indeed any other issues such as convictions hence my assumption the car is heavily modified.

The police tend to only do these types of checks if you have really rubbed them up the wrong way or they have strong suspicions.

In normal circumstances for a non disclosure an Insurer would have to find out about the non disclosure and then decide whether the non disclosure was innocent or inadvertent or intentional etc before they could decide whether to void the policy. As per the Ombudsman's guidelines.

It's unusual for a policy to be revoked over the phone, I assume it's because Admiral deal with modifications in a unique way. If you have moidifications you need to declare them and they make a charge for virtually all modifications. The charge is technically a separate insurance
policy which is underwritten by a different insurer. So I assume due to this Admiral do not technically accept any modifications (Unless declared and the appropriate premium paid should this be required) hence they were able to void the policy.

I would not be surprised if there were other issues with this case e fronting or the person was at an unofficial cruise that the police are trying to disrupt by using these type of tactics

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/27/27-ins-nondisclosure.htm

dunstonh

It's extremely unusual for the Police to check whether a policyholder has declared modifications or indeed any other issues such as convictions hence my assumption the car is heavily modified.
The police tend to only do these types of checks if you have really rubbed them up the wrong way or they have strong suspicions.

It heard it said recently by a copper that they will go out of their way to find reasons to hassle known criminals to try and get them off the road.

mikey72

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

What the Police are saying is that the insurance was not lawfully obtained, the question on the application form regarding has the vehicle been modified was not correctly addressed . They therefore did not accept the insurance as meeting the statutory requirement . Mind you if you do that as well as driving without due care and attention you deserve to get done.

PS I have just renewed with Admiral, my premium has hardly gone up at all. Perhaps they are cherry picking !

It's not their call though.
They're the police, not the judge and jury.

anotherbaldrick

mikey72 wrote: »

It's not their call though.
They're the police, not the judge and jury.

If you do not have valid insurance they have legal powers, and this insurance was not valid because it had been obtained by deceit of omission. They could have taken the car to be crushed.

mikey72

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

If you do not have valid insurance they have legal powers, and this insurance was not valid because it had been obtained by deceit of omission. They could have taken the car to be crushed.

No, the insurance was in dispute. There is then the formal complaints procedure, and the FOS.
The insurers could well have broken the t&c's of the insurance contract.

It would be a bit worrying if the police could ask your insurer to cancel your insurance immediately on any percieved techincallity, which couldn't be proven either way at the time, then they took your car away and crushed it before you could appeal.