Admiral Car Insurance Con?

Tristar100

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

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!

Hi.
I didn't ask for help hence why are you asking me to show gratitude? I'm pursuing Admiral myself on behalf of my daughter. My comments were offered as comments and not a request for help.

Secondly, I would refer you to the excellent post from 2sides2everystory.

Thirdly, and I stated in my post that any IFA should not take it personally. no IFA is in any position to offer advice following the track record of missold products.

Finally, the crux of my case is that Admiral raided a bank account using a debit card number issued to them 12 months before, in order to insure a vehicle which already had a SORN notice attached. Clever that isn't it particualrly when the industry has access to SORN records.

Tristar100

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.

Hi.
Perhaps you should read the point about the SORN and then tell Us all as to why a vehicle which doesn't require insurance; requires insurance?

And my point about IFAs stays.

rs65

Just because a vehicle has been Sorn’d doesn’t mean there is no need for insurance.

Scrapped is different but Sorn’d means there is still an AD,F&T risk.

TSx

thelawnet wrote: »

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.

(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.

And in the preamble to the act, it points out it...

Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to insurances bona fide made by any person or persons on ships, goods, or merchandises, but every such insurance shall be as valid and effectual in the law as if this Act had not been made.

From what I'm aware (and it's been a few years since I did this so I've had to look it up), the courts have classed Motor Insurance (certainly when it covers damage to a car) as goods insurance. I'm not sure how the 1906 act (presumably the Marine Insurance Act?) changes things either.

My understanding is that if the Life Assurance Act 1774 was involved, then the contract would be illegal and therefore void. Am I right in thinking that if they'd already taken the premiums, you wouldn't be entitled to a refund in that case? (I know it doesn't apply here, I'm just curious).

As I've said, I still think the contracts void by way of mistake because the two parties thought different things when the contract was entered in to, I just don't think the lack of insurable interest makes it illegal (and I probably didn't phrase it well previously). I'm also happy to be corrected.

TSx

2sides2everystory wrote: »

TSx the contract is simply void because there was no subject matter to insure at any point in the period of insurance in question (the one post 'renewal'). You don't have to tie yourself in knots in the legal mumbo jumbo to understand that, surely?

Both the Life Insurance Act 1774 and the Marine Insurance Act 1906 had and still have application to insurance outside the obvious titles of those acts.

So does the Gambling Act 2005 but that's another story (a law that was drafted with obvious mistakes by loose thinkers) which is still under debate.

PS I see you have one fan - not the sort you really want !

Believe it or not, I'd like to understand why I'm wrong. How does the Life Assurance Act 1774 or the Marine Insurance Act 1906 apply to motor insurance? I'm aware of the Gambling Act 2005, which only serves to strengthen my point because it makes contracts of gambling/wagering enforceable.

Am I wrong, or is the issue more with the fact that I even bothered pointing out that lack of insurable interest is not an issue?

thelawnet

TSx wrote: »

Believe it or not, I'd like to understand why I'm wrong. How does the Life Assurance Act 1774 or the Marine Insurance Act 1906 apply to motor insurance?

The Marine Insurance Act codified existing common law.

And common law states that where the item has perished prior to sale, the contract is void. That's any kind of contract.

The purpose of the Marine Insurance Act was to make a single piece of legislation for the obviously expensive and complicate business of international shipping.

I don't believe the Marine Insurance Act does have applicability to motor insurance, but most of it is still common law in respect of non-marine insurance contracts.

There's a discussion of insurable interest here

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/ICL4_Insurable_Interest.pdf

The doctrine of insurable interest states, broadly speaking, that in order to have a valid policy of insurance, the policyholder must:
(1) gain a benefit from the continued existence of the subject matter of the insurance; or
(2) suffer a loss on its destruction

[...]
Insurable interest is, however, thought to be one of the few areas where the Marine Insurance Act 1906 is limited in its effect to marine insurance. It is the Gaming Act 1845 which is regarded as being the Act that creates the obligation for insurable interest in other non-marine indemnity insurance, not the Marine Insurance Act 1906.

[...]

[P]rotection was given by declaring gambling contracts enforceable, this allowed consumers to take bookmakers to court if they refused to pay on an otherwise valid wager. In order to do this the Gambling Act 2005 repealed section 18 of the Gaming Act 1845 and in its place stated that “a fact that a contract relates to gambling does not prevent its enforcement”.
This provision came into force on 1 September 2007.

t appears that for the purposes of enforceability at least, insurable interest is no longer necessary in non-marine indemnity insurance in England and Wales, although it remains a common law requirement in Scotland.

[...]

The Gambling Act appears to have affected contracts of insurance by accident.

The effect of repealing section 18 of the Gaming Act 1845 on the requirement for insurable interest was not discussed in the White or Green Papers or by Parliament when the Gambling Act 2005 was passed.

The discussion is all on the subject of parties who did not have an insurable interest at the time of contract now being able to claim.

What this doesn't affect is that you cannot, at common law, make a contract in respect of an item that has perished.
The contract cannot be performed, there is no consideration provided by the insurer, the contract is void.

rudekid48

Impressive post 2sides :beer:
So are you going to tell us which Insurer it was that sacked you / made you redundant / forced early retirement on you?

Going by the amount of personal attacks that you launched, I bet you were a real hoot to work with :rotfl:

Oh, and before you say it - no, I don't work for the Insurance industry. I did once, but that was a long time ago when there were a lot more relics like you about.


I can see both sides to this issue - I'm not a fan of auto-renewal as however it gets dressed up it is there solely to force retention rates up and increase average premiums. Having said that, I'm also not a fan of people who ignore instructions / warnings and then cry foul after the event making spurious claims about being "robbed" or "ripped off" etc, when all they had to do was say NO.

Auto-renewal is actually a very good reflection of UK society in the 21st century - on one hand you have the modern face of capitalism looking to exploit every opportunity available to increase profits and on the other you have a population incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions. Things are never our fault any more are they? There's always a Company / Council / Government to blame. :money:

Lokolo

2sides2everystory wrote: »

You are a reflection of something that persists in UK society my friend and yes you are right, you would almost certainly not have enjoyed working anywhere near me if 'work' is what you might have claimed you were doing

That's got to be the shortest post of your "MSE career". Congrats.

rudekid48

2sides2everystory wrote: »

You are a reflection of something that persists in UK society my friend and yes you are right, you would almost certainly not have enjoyed working anywhere near me if 'work' is what you might have claimed you were doing

I just knew you'd reply

Scots

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Google advertising can be £10 per click

Excellent ..... here's what us p'd off insurance customers should do ..... go to google as many times as you can manage and click on the paid ad until the b4stards go bust.

Only use companies with good feedback who appreciate, respect and serve their customers.

The rest of em can go to hell.