Admiral multicar - help please

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Not good advice.

It is technically true though. A default in itself doesn't constitute having "had insurance cancelled". However, if the insurer has exercised its right of cancellation due to a default then that is another matter..

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

It is technically true though. A default in itself doesn't constitute having "had insurance cancelled". However, if the insurer has exercised its right of cancellation due to a default then that is another matter..

You and Quote can be smartar*es.
But don't mess about on here when it will cost money.

You aren't going to help the op by playing on words when the op has already said Admiral have sent notice to cancel the policy.

That will cost a lot when it has to be declared, and a statement like
"A default in itself doesn't constitute having "had insurance cancelled"
is misleading, as you both know we're talking about the consequence of the default, which is the cancellation that has been already notified in post 1.

I actually expected better of you.

greenbee1

bouncyd!!! wrote: »

Has daughter 2 got her own car or is she a named driver on daughter 1's policy?

It sounds as if what you are saying, is that the premium increased when daughter 2 was added to the policy to drive the car insured by daughter 1 (which would be reasonable because she is only 18 and insurers would require an extra premium for the additional risk she presents due to her inexperience).

If that is the case, then the liability for the payment will be with the policyholder - daughter 1. Presumably there was an agreement between the 2 of them that daughter 2 would pay the increase in the monthly premium and didn't have the money to do so.

If this is the case, then daughter 1 is going to have to find the premium being requested to avoid having the policy cancelled, and all that will entail going forwards as previously outlined.

Can you somehow loan her the money - can she get an overdraft facility etc. etc.

If insurers have already refused to accept the payment then there is little to be gained by sending the instalment to them, because they will either return it, or keep it towards the balance of premium and still insist on having the rest.

They both have their own cars, the balance they are asking for is the balance owing for both cars for the remainder of the life of the policy (October) . Daughter 1 is the main policy holder.
We have not got the money otherwise I would just pay this.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

You and Quote can be smartar*es.
But don't mess about on here when it will cost money.

You aren't going to help the op by playing on words when the op has already said Admiral have sent notice to cancel the policy.

That will cost a lot when it has to be declared, and a statement like
"A default in itself doesn't constitute having "had insurance cancelled"
is misleading, as you both know we're talking about the consequence of the default, which is the cancellation that has been already notified in post 1.

I actually expected better of you.

It's not my fault that you misread his post!

bouncydog1

Well I don't see where you can go from here. Insurers have exercised their right to cancel the policy on 14 April if the balance of the annual premium is not received by that date.

You say you have contacted them and they have refused to reinstate the direct debit, so all I can suggest is that your daughters do not drive after 14 April otherwise they will be driving without insurance.

The policyholder - daughter 1 - may also expect to receive a bill from the insurers for a short period premium together with a cancellation fee possibly followed afterwards by contact from a debt collection agency if other posts on here relating to unpaid car insurance premiums are anything to go by.

What have they said about all of this - they are 21 and 18 - if they are old enough to accept the responsibility of driving a car they must accept responsibility for the insurance - how can they afford to run their cars if they aren't budgeting for insurance etc? The finger seems to be pointing at insurers for being unreasonable, but the bottom line is that the contract was broken by the policyholder - the insurer tried twice to collect the money.

I really don't see what else you can do.