Please help! Insurance nightmare.

dacouch

busicat wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]The way this works is you get the policyholder to pay both the premium and the claim, whether that’s treating the customer fairly or not. This is how to reinstate the fortunes of the industry. And this is how one insurer is trying to make it work in this story….[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Liability for a car accident rests with the policyholder’s “friend” who is also the non-insured driver and owner of the car. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]One way or another, (possibly a mistake in their new business process?), Admiral eagerly provided cover to the policyholder allowing her also to drive the car (of course with the friend’s permission), covering her for…I’m wondering what now?! The policy meant she was driving legally, having insurance in place to protect Third Parties, and, it appears, damage to the car etc..[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now, through an accident nothing to do with the policyholder, the benefit of the policy turns out to be that she gets asked to pay for the accident caused by the friend and which has resulted in Admiral paying out as the sole insurer of the car, thanks to the RTA. (i.e. The bit that says in s.151(2)(b) if you’ve insured a car and there’s a third party liability for the driver of the car, you have to pay out as the insurer, even though the driver wasn’t covered by you.)[/FONT]

So that does turn out a bit tough on Admiral. But never, mind, they think they’ve got the policy wording and the RTA on their side to make their customer pay for it all. After all, if it wasn’t for her choosing them as her insurer, they wouldn’t have been hit with that other idiot’s liability. So serves her right, let’s go for her, eh?

So, if we’re all agreed that’s the right thing to do (???) (best not think too hard about “Treating Customer’s Fairly” might apply or how anyone on this forum might feel like passing this one over to the FCA’s whistle-blowing team), let’s see how the law and small print lets Admiral treat a 22 year old as their reinsurer to the tune of £20k….

First of all the policy:
[FONT=&quot]Payments made under compulsory Insurance regulations and right of recovery[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If the Law in any country in which your policy operates requires us to settle a claim on your behalf, which, if this Law had not existed, we would not be obliged to pay, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]we shall be entitled to recover such payments either from you or the driver.[/FONT]

There you go…we can’t be bothered to go after the driver, so we’ll go for you as we were forced to pay a claim just because of the law, not because the policy covered it, and we had to settle the claim on your behalf. Oh, hang on, it wasn’t on your behalf was it. You didn’t cause the accident and didn’t own the car so in no way was this your liability, so we weren’t settling the claim on your behalf. Who’d have thought our lawyers would have been so generous as to leave in something that protects the policyholder. Must be an oversight. (Note to self: get idiot lawyers to zap “on your behalf”. Unless they might report me to Compliance re TCF. Hmm, maybe not.) Ah, well never mind, there’s still the statute to fall back on:

Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 151 (8) should do it….
[FONT=&quot]Where an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay an amount in respect of a liability of a person who is not insured by a policy or whose liability is not covered by a security, he is entitled to recover the amount from that person[/FONT] (no point bothering there, we think, let’s let our policyholder try her best with that one, heh, heh) [FONT=&quot]or from any person who—[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](a) is insured by the policy, or whose liability is covered by the security, by the terms of which the liability would be covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons,[/FONT]
Ha, gotcha baby, that’s you! Thank goodness no-one on the forum managed to prove the policy was void, or the game would be up.
Oh, hang on though, what’s this last bit? ….
[FONT=&quot]…. and (b) caused or permitted the use of the vehicle which gave rise to the liability.[/FONT]

Oh, no, “[FONT=&quot]caused or permitted” [/FONT]how am I going to make that one stack up? Maybe I can make it look like mad driver rang up polholder and said "I’m thinking of going out in my car" and PH said "yeah, OK". Or that PH texted mad driver and said “I need you to come and pick me up in your car”

Oh, forget it, another money spinning idea in the bin!

Only problems with that are Admiral are unlikely to recover the entire amount from the OP's daughter.

The (ex) friend has given the OP's daughters details and the police don't seem to be pressing any charges against the (ex) friend so a civil court case against the (ex) friend by Admiral would be difficult

It would be helpful if the OP posted a copy of the refusal letter from Admiral giving the reason / reasons for declining indemnity

RebekahL

hi,

Dug out my letters.

Right, they wrote to me to cancel my policy because they said they won't be dealing with my claim because 'my' car was being driven by somebody who was not a named driver!! wow just bypass the fact that I was not the owner - DVLA could tell you that!

Whilst digging around in the back of my mind, I remember the first conversation I had with Admiral about the accident and it wasn't me etc etc, to which I recall telling them that I wanted to cancel the policy because I hadn't been using the car very much and the temp insurance was much better for me. Never mind, it must be my car and YOU must cancel the policy FOR ME.

Also, found a letter dated over a year ago threatening legal proceedings against me if I didn't cough up the full whack in 28 days - hold on let me grab my cheque book.

I have got in touch with the police again - who said they would dig my file out of the archive (that's nice) - did mention to them how their officer accepted the story of that girl with no ID and no follow-up at the station, and how if she had killed somebody in the accident I'm sure the case wouldn't have been forgotten. They got right onto that and will be in touch next week!! (hope they don't put themselves out doing their job properly nearly 3 years too late)
Also going to hunt down my old boss for my time sheet for that day and take that down the station.

I have also found the summary report from the third party's solicitors - says there was a bit of whiplash and headaches, no medical prof sought or time off work, drove away in the car (citroen c2) but needed a hire car after and description of the driver (whos name and address all spelt incorrectly from police and 3rd party) was slim blonde 5'6" 30yrs old. Wouldn't call myself slim, got dark brown hair and I was 20 at the time. hmmm.... I'm sure the police officer and the 3rd party would have been able to identify me IF this had been dealt with properly. -- but more importantly I find it hard to believe that the above claim cost £20k?? possibly Admiral are trying to make some profits here?? hmm yes?

Anyhoo, I have emailed Admiral asking for an additional copy of my original agreement and then I will get advise from everywhere I can. I will get this sorted once and for all - don't fancy ANOTHER 3 years of paying high insurance premiums for a claim I didn't make.

thenudeone

SimonSays wrote: »

Its not rubbish. If you read what I said fully before jumping on it You'll see I acknowledge temporary insurance, But a full policy requires an insurable interest...

Could you please point out any piece of legislation or case law which means different rules apply to "temporary" insurance as opposed to "permanent" insurance.

I'll give you a hint: there is no difference. They are both subject to the same rules of criminal and contract law.

Parking_Trouble

RebekahL wrote: »

hi,

Dug out my letters.

Right, they wrote to me to cancel my policy because they said they won't be dealing with my claim because 'my' car was being driven by somebody who was not a named driver!! wow just bypass the fact that I was not the owner - DVLA could tell you that!

Whilst digging around in the back of my mind, I remember the first conversation I had with Admiral about the accident and it wasn't me etc etc, to which I recall telling them that I wanted to cancel the policy because I hadn't been using the car very much and the temp insurance was much better for me. Never mind, it must be my car and YOU must cancel the policy FOR ME.

Also, found a letter dated over a year ago threatening legal proceedings against me if I didn't cough up the full whack in 28 days - hold on let me grab my cheque book.

I have got in touch with the police again - who said they would dig my file out of the archive (that's nice) - did mention to them how their officer accepted the story of that girl with no ID and no follow-up at the station, and how if she had killed somebody in the accident I'm sure the case wouldn't have been forgotten. They got right onto that and will be in touch next week!! (hope they don't put themselves out doing their job properly nearly 3 years too late)
Also going to hunt down my old boss for my time sheet for that day and take that down the station.

I have also found the summary report from the third party's solicitors - says there was a bit of whiplash and headaches, no medical prof sought or time off work, drove away in the car (citroen c2) but needed a hire car after and description of the driver (whos name and address all spelt incorrectly from police and 3rd party) was slim blonde 5'6" 30yrs old. Wouldn't call myself slim, got dark brown hair and I was 20 at the time. hmmm.... I'm sure the police officer and the 3rd party would have been able to identify me IF this had been dealt with properly. -- but more importantly I find it hard to believe that the above claim cost £20k?? possibly Admiral are trying to make some profits here?? hmm yes?

Anyhoo, I have emailed Admiral asking for an additional copy of my original agreement and then I will get advise from everywhere I can. I will get this sorted once and for all - don't fancy ANOTHER 3 years of paying high insurance premiums for a claim I didn't make.

Ask Admiral to provide a detailed breakdown of the claim. The actions they have taken including dates and what they have paid out. Get the engineers report for the damage to the C2. I doubt they will provide the medical report due to data protection.

No doubt it will add up to £20k. They won't be making any money out of this themselves.

There will be the PI claim, maybe solicitor costs, medical costs (doctors examination, physio, etc) repairing the damage to the C2, credit (car) hire costs, storage, etc.

Admiral will have done as little as possible to challenge the claim, they may have made a pre-medical offer for the whiplash to try to keep costs down whether there is evidence or not.

They will go with whatever the third party "experts" say and won't have got their own "experts" to corroborate the "evidence"

The form you didn't sign was probably an indemnity form where you admit liability and accept their kind offer to use their legal team and claims team free of charge to act on your behalf to keep the costs down. Although I suspect they just follow the usual claims process and do very little. If you didn't sign then perhaps they are charging you for their time.

Seek the expert legal advice as suggested earlier.

Write an official complaint to Admiral. If you are not happy with the outcome and you believe Admiral have not been fair then get the FOS to look into it. The Ombudsman decision is binding for Admiral. The FOS will write the complaint letter for you if you want but in my experience they may not word it correctly.

It is unusual for an insurer to provide cover if you are not the owner or RK of the vehicle. Perhaps that was lost in the move from temporary cover to a full policy. You really need to find some written evidence that this was fully disclosed. If you took the policy out over the phone then ask to listen to the recording (if they can find it)

Good luck!

spacey2012

The insurer are liable for the claim under RTA.
They can under civil legalisation recover any cost contractually chargeable.

The two issues need splitting.

If they attempt civil court it will be a contractual claim under civil law.
This allows your daughter the right to counter claim the loss against the actual guilty party.
This would be best done via a Solicitor as a lot is at stake.
The two separate claims have become entwined.
She can divert the second on to this "friend" by counter claim and "friend" adding as joint defendant thus side stepping the civil aspect of the claim.
It can be done, but it will need to wait for the claim and she will need a very hot and on the ball solicitor.
It wont be the bloke in town above the estate agents, it will be a litigation expert from a town centre office.

Parking_Trouble

Just checked online to find that Admiral will let you take out a policy on a car you don't own.

eddddy

Back to the key question of why the insurance policy was cancelled...

In circumstances like this, I suspect that insurance companies speculatively cancel a policy as a 'quick and dirty' test, to see how the policyholder reacts.

If the policyholder walks away without challenging, they assume the policyholder knows they have done something wrong - and proceeds accordingly.

If the policyholder challenges them, then they spend some time and effort considering the matter properly.

It's a useful way for insurance companies to save costs by transferring the 'burden of proof' from them to the policyholder.

So, as suggested by others, challenging the cancellation may be a good starting point.

dacouch

eddddy wrote: »

Back to the key question of why the insurance policy was cancelled...

In circumstances like this, I suspect that insurance companies speculatively cancel a policy as a 'quick and dirty' test, to see how the policyholder reacts.

If the policyholder walks away without challenging, they assume the policyholder knows they have done something wrong - and proceeds accordingly.

If the policyholder challenges them, then they spend some time and effort considering the matter properly.

It's a useful way for insurance companies to save costs by transferring the 'burden of proof' from them to the policyholder.

So, as suggested by others, challenging the cancellation may be a good starting point.

Voiding a policy should not be a decision taken lightly, it would normally require a proper investigation, many companies would request a written explanation from the client as part of this process. The final decision on voiding the policy would then be made by a senior member of staff typically in the underwriting department.

Their decision should be influenced by the Ombudsmans (and now the revised legislation) with regard to the intention of the client eg whether it was innocent or intentional and also as to whether they would have accepted the business in the first place had they been aware of the information.

Parking_Trouble

In my little experiment Admiral appear to easily accept a proposal where the policyholder is not the RK. They don't require the RK to be a named driver or have their own policy.

Seems reasonable to expect the RK to have keys to the car.

Seems well worth a complaint, even though fairness and car insurance are often mutually exclusive.