Admiral Car Insurance Con?

Tristar100

thenudeone wrote: »

You had automatic renewal set up.
Admiral advised you that the policy was going to be renewed.
You didn't do anything about it.
They have carried on insuring you to drive.

You've said "What an absolutely disgusting way to do business"

How on earth have you come to that conclusion?

Would you rather that they cancelled your policy (even though they had told you that it was going to be renewed), and you ran the risk of having your vehicle seized by police and 6 points on your licence? They had no idea that you no longer had the car because YOU DIDN'T TELL THEM.

This problem is 100% YOUR FAULT. Take some responsibility for your own actions (and inactions).

You should contact them and grovel profusely; show them the letter proving that the car was scrapped, apologise for not telling them at the time, state that you're willing to pay their debt-collection costs, and ask politely for them to agree to amend their records to indicate that the policy was not cancelled by them, otherwise you will have problems getting insurance for the rest of your life.

Hi.
If we can just reverse back a little here to the original post.

A key question: do your insurance docs state anywhere that automatic renewal is provided for in your policy? If not, then you did ask for it to be provided? If the answer to both is NO then Admiral has. no right to auto renew and hence no right to charge.

If your documents state that auto renewal is in place as part of the terms and conditions then by default you agreed to this condition.

My daughter is presently fighting a case against Admiral who have passed her "debt" to a debt collector. She cancelled her policy at the date of renewal, took out a SORN and now finds that she owes Admiral/debt collection agency £100.00. Admiral state that they insured her yet she received no insurance certificate which would indicate that they acted upon her letter. So, Admiral appear to have a policy of persuing any client that cancels or fails to renew willingly. Yet, it seems that they issue no new policy. Doesn't this indicate a policy of inertia selling which is presently under review in Europe? The next big misselling scandal perhaps?

dunstonh

A key question: do your insurance docs state anywhere that automatic renewal is provided for in your policy? If not, then you did ask for it to be provided? If the answer to both is NO then Admiral has. no right to auto renew and hence no right to charge.

I seem to recall from past posts that Admiral do. They also state it in the renewal letter each year as well telling you exactly what you have to do next.

Doesn't this indicate a policy of inertia selling which is presently under review in Europe? The next big misselling scandal perhaps?

The indications are that the regulator prefers auto-renewal on key contracts. Although it does expect the renewal notice to be quite clear on what to do next if you do or do not wish to renew.

Tristar100

dunstonh wrote: »

I seem to recall from past posts that Admiral do. They also state it in the renewal letter each year as well telling you exactly what you have to do next.



The indications are that the regulator prefers auto-renewal on key contracts. Although it does expect the renewal notice to be quite clear on what to do next if you do or do not wish to renew.

Key contracts. I take out home contents, house structure, car and caravan insurance each year yet none of the companies involved practice auto renew. They treat me like a grown up and assume that I can read and write and act responsibly. In other words they don't nanny me yet SOME insurance companies practice a policy of raiding your bank account annually via your bank DEBIT card. Inertia selling at its worst. The argument that it protects us from ourselves is a nonsense. The practice is also predatory. I look forward and anticipate the forthcoming misselling scandal.

When I llook back at all the past scandals I find no evidence that any IFA ever cautioned against the practices. In other words, whilst I appreciate your knowledge and input, I'm afraid I cannot take ANY IFA seriously. You are just the wrong person ( please don't take this personally) to offer advice.

TSx

mikey72 wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree.

But whether they can issue a policy for a car he doesn't own, then cancel a policy that couldn't exist, and require the cusomer to declare it for something they shouldn't have done, that's something I would challenge.

The policy should be voided from inception, and then no cancellation would have to be declared.

And yes, he should have told them when he no longer owned the car, and they may still charge him for that.

Legally there is no requirement for insurable interest in the creation of goods insurance, however you could potentially argue the contract should be void by mistake (one party thought the subject matter existed, whilst the other knew it didn't).

I'd stick a complaint in - they'll view it more favourably than the courts, and the worse they'll say is no.

dunstonh

They treat me like a grown up and assume that I can read and write and act responsibly.

Which is fine. Those that auto renew also treat you as a grown up and expect you to read the short renewal letter telling you what to do next.

In other words, whilst I appreciate your knowledge and input, I'm afraid I cannot take ANY IFA seriously.

Thats ok. I cant take you seriously either. You seem to be wanted to be treated like an adult but seem to have a problem following simple instructions.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

Which is fine. Those that auto renew also treat you as a grown up and expect you to read the short renewal letter telling you what to do next.



Thats ok. I cant take you seriously either. You seem to be wanted to be treated like an adult but seem to have a problem following simple instructions.

I don't want to have to follow instructions not to have a policy forced on me, which even if I comply with then appear to be ignored at times by insurance companies.I buy a policy for a year, then expect to buy another for the next year, or at least be offered the policy for a fair price, not an inflated "renewal" price.

no-oneknowsme

Tristar100 wrote: »

When I llook back at all the past scandals I find no evidence that any IFA ever cautioned against the practices. In other words, whilst I appreciate your knowledge and input, I'm afraid I cannot take ANY IFA seriously. You are just the wrong person ( please don't take this personally) to offer advice.

Thats a bit rude.

If You want any help/advice the least you could do is show some gratitude.

The poster you aimed this comment on is a valuable member of the boards and offers some sound advice. Your rudeness wont help you on this board im afraid!

vaio

don't you just hate fence sitters?

dunstonh

I don't want to have to follow instructions not to have a policy forced on me, which even if I comply with then appear to be ignored at times by insurance companies.I buy a policy for a year, then expect to buy another for the next year, or at least be offered the policy for a fair price, not an inflated "renewal" price.

As I have said before on a number of threads, I dont like auto-renewal but it is not difficult. Letter arrives and tells you what to do.

thelawnet

Not really sure why this thread was bumped, but there really are some moronic replies here.

The car does not exist so the contract is void. It cannot get any more simple than that. It's contract law 101.

Advice to pay up, or to declare that you've had an insurance policy cancelled is just idiotic.

And this is not some EU law to protect the !!!!less and lazy, nope this was enacted by George III, prior even to the American Revolution.

Life Assurance Act 1774

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/14/48/section/1.

From and after the passing of this Act no insurance shall be made by any person or persons, bodies politick or corporate, on the life or lives of any person, or persons, or on any other event or events whatsoever, wherein the person or persons for whose use, benefit, or on whose account such policy or policies shall be made, shall have no interest, or by way of gaming or wagering; and every assurance made contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.

(Further strengthened in 1906)

The contract is void, it never was in force, so there is no policy, so nothing to have cancelled. No policy ever existed, so no debt can be enforced, no insurance cancellation should be declared, and no more idiots should go spouting off their inane and costly 'advice'.

Sadly the stupidity of some of the earlier responses appears to have driven away the OP, and it's unlikely we'll ever get an update on this. Still worth making things absolutely clear though.