Car written off - Admiral refuse to pay out

Clint_Magnum

Over Xmas I got water in my engine whilst splashed by a unknown 4x4 driver coming the other way, going through standing water. My BMW 645 was written off by Admiral.
As if that wasn't bad enough I'd heard nothing back form Admiral so chased them over the phone. They informed me the car will definitely be written off as the repairs were too expensive for them. They then did a three way call with DVLA to confirm I had a full UK driving license and correct date of birth etc. During this call the DVLA made mention of an SP30 driving offence which occurred 3 yrs ago when a speed camera flashed me in a 30mph zone. Admiral state they were unaware of this and won't pay, referring my claim to their underwriters.
They state that they suspect I fraudulently omitted the driving conviction to obtain a cheaper premium which is fraud so therefore won't pay me out for my written off car. On a strict liability issue I guess they're right so no need to reply and tell me it's my fault as I'm painfully aware of that now. This was not legally a "conviction" as it was never at court, rather a fixed penalty fine paid via post, although I should have disclosed it. It was also 3yrs old when I obtained my insurance quote so I was under the impression it was spent.
Why on earth would I wilfully fail to disclose a 3yr old fine. I didn't gain any financial advantage as I spoke with insurers via phone who all that 3 penalty points for a 30mph speed camera would not raise or effect the premiums (but I guarantee they won't admit this now!).
The Financial Ombudsman website seems a little fairer and gives some provision for genuine error and oversight but I fear I'm !!!!!!ed as Admiral won't pay me a penny now. Anyone had similar experiences with any insurers?:eek:

spacey2012

Never deal with insurance companies on a phone, yes it's convenient but they exploit it as a method of tripping you up.

raskazz

1) When searching for quotes at the time, did you disclose the conviction on any of the quotes originally then remove it, or otherwise later obtain quotes without the conviction?

2) Do you or any other drivers named on the policy have any other convictions, claims or losses?

NorthernOne

Ask them if they had known about the conviction would they have still insured you and what the difference was/would be in premium. If they say they would insure you which seems to be the case they complain as per the policy booklet, if they maintain their stance then complain to the FOS

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-insurance-casestudies-non-disclosure.htm#2514

notanewuser

There's something else not quite right about this. They wouldn't usually refuse to cover somebody with just one 3 year old speeding conviction.

So when it comes to the write off, they'd usually re-rate the policy and deduct any additional premium due from the settlement figure. Why aren't they doing that in this case?

TSx

notanewuser wrote: »

There's something else not quite right about this. They wouldn't usually refuse to cover somebody with just one 3 year old speeding conviction.

So when it comes to the write off, they'd usually re-rate the policy and deduct any additional premium due from the settlement figure. Why aren't they doing that in this case?

As I suspect Raskazz did, my first thought was that they had some evidence you had a quote with the conviction and without (as they record all the details of the quotes) which would show a fraudulent intent.

If that's not the case, and assuming it is as straightforward as it seems, then I would suspect a complaint via the FOS (although lengthy) would result in Admiral being forced to pay you out.

The only way they could not pay out is if they wouldn't have insured you, with knowledge of the SP30, or if they can show that you have acted fraudulently, or deliberately not disclosed the information.

dacouch

It would have been better if you had continued the original thread so posters can read the original details as well.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4365895

ILW

TSx wrote: »

As I suspect Raskazz did, my first thought was that they had some evidence you had a quote with the conviction and without (as they record all the details of the quotes) which would show a fraudulent intent.

If that's not the case, and assuming it is as straightforward as it seems, then I would suspect a complaint via the FOS (although lengthy) would result in Admiral being forced to pay you out.

The only way they could not pay out is if they wouldn't have insured you, with knowledge of the SP30, or if they can show that you have acted fraudulently, or deliberately not disclosed the information.

OP knew he had the conviction though and decided not to disclose it.

TSx

ILW wrote: »

OP knew he had the conviction though and decided not to disclose it.

In my experience, if you say you forgot about it and it's a minor conviction, the FOS won't uphold a voidance on those grounds.

FlameCloud

TSx wrote: »

In my experience, if you say you forgot about it and it's a minor conviction, the FOS won't uphold a voidance on those grounds.

If the op ran multiple quotes on search engines both with and without the conviction (as some people do) and then didn't declare it, I would say the insurers have good grounds to defend it n the basis of deliberate misrepresentation.

sithemadmonkey

If they're referring the claim to the underwriters, it probably means they're not paying out yet, pending their decision on how to proceed. It's very (very) unlikely that they won't pay out at all (since they would have offered cover based on the speeding conviction, but at a higher premium), but they could either deduct the additional premium that should have been paid from the settlement, or give a 'proportional settlement' - they give you the settlement, but deduct the % of correct premium that hasn't been paid.

i.e. if premium was £150 but should have been £200 with the speeding conviction, OP has only paid 75% of what he should have, so the settlement will only be 75% of the full amount.