Admiral and Albany Assistance Complaints Nightmare

dacouch

Quentin wrote: »

It seems that Albany (deliberately?) did tell the OP that he could take the matter higher - but mislead him by telling him the higher authority was the Financial Ombudsman who have told the OP they are exempt from their service.


Isn't the misinformation from Albany itself grounds for allowing a late appeal?


And can Albany be put straight by yourselves over this (to stop them getting away with this as most of their "victims" won't have the benefit of going public as Scudgie has done, and just accept their "fate" at the hands of Albany after discovering too late they have been mislead )?

To even things out, they should have an extra Ombudsman especially for claims management and credit hire companies.

I propose that this Ombudsman would charges very inflated fees and that those fees would be levied per day the complaint is with the Ombudsman.

To make it even fairer, this Ombudsman should raise spurious arguments, blame any delays on the other party all with a view to hang out the complaint and increase the fees along having a delay due to waiting for parts for the Ombudsman's pen.

This Ombudsman using these tactics could easily liberate approaching £10k from the claims companies / credit hire companies per complaint.

I would name this Ombudsman the Karma Ombudsman.

rudekid48

dacouch wrote: »

To even things out, they should have an extra Ombudsman especially for claims management and credit hire companies.

I propose that this Ombudsman would charges very inflated fees and that those fees would be levied per day the complaint is with the Ombudsman.

To make it even fairer, this Ombudsman should raise spurious arguments, blame any delays on the other party all with a view to hang out the complaint and increase the fees along having a delay due to waiting for parts for the Ombudsman's pen.

This Ombudsman using these tactics could easily liberate approaching £10k from the claims companies / credit hire companies per complaint.

I would name this Ombudsman the Karma Ombudsman.

As a lot of people have been <ahem> 'shafted' by these companies, maybe the ombudsman would be better named the Karma (Law)Sutra...

I'll get my coat.&#55358;&#56592;

Parking_Trouble

Could the OP not take the repairer through the small claims court?

Doesn't cost much to do that. Sounds like OP has a really good case.
No guarantee of getting money out of the repairer but if they get work through Allblarney they might not want a CCJ hanging around.

Although Admiral and their merry band of companies often come up cheapest on comparison sites it is a reflection of the service you get when it (literally) comes to the crunch.

Why not add Allblarney and repairer jointly responsible?

And Admiral.

magpiecottage

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Could the OP not take the repairer through the small claims court?

Possibly but if they are acting as the agent of somebody under jurisdiction of FOS/LeO jurisdiction, going down that route is free and, if the case is won creates an immediate and actionable debt in its own right.

Auxillis

Hello Scudgie,

Your final complaint response letter was dated 9th June 2015, which means you are well within the timeframe for the Legal Ombudsman services to review your complaint. In response to the letter from the Financial Ombudsman that was copied to us, a letter dated 30th October has been sent to you to advise you of this option.

Kind Regards,

Albany Assistance Online Team

Quentin

albanyassistance wrote: »

Hello Scudgie,

Your final complaint response letter was dated 9th June 2015, which means you are well within the timeframe for the Legal Ombudsman services to review your complaint.....

It seems it was lucky that Scudgie came here and went public over this.


Why would your Company send out a final response giving the customer totally false information about now being able to escalate their complaint to the FOS?

Scudgie

Thank you to everyone who has provided advice. I will certainly be contacting the Legal Ombudsman.

Here's details of the letter, dated 30 October 2015, I have today received via email from Albany (I'm refraining from publishing the name of the author): -

'In regards to the above, we have received a final response form the
Financial Ombudsman Services advising that they are not taking any further
action in respect of your complain. Should you remain unhappy with this decision
you may wish to consider contacting the Legal Ombudsman Services for further
advice.





Provides details of the LOS address.





We trust this information is of use to you. If you require any further
assistance on this matter please don't hesitate to contact us.

'

Not a single word of an apology for the inconvenience they have caused by misinforming me of my rights to complain. This, added to the appalling way they have dealt with my claim, is an absolute disgrace.

Scudgie

Not sure if I have previously mentioned that my Insurance Broker is Hastings Direct.

When receiving Albany's final decision I complained to Hastings and was told that this has nothing to do with them as their responsibility ended when I agreed to use a claims management company.

A perfect example of the benefit of hindsight. Had I read this thread beforehand I would have made sure I avoided Albany like the plague. Lesson learned - just hope this thread is of benefit to those who have to make a similar decision in the future.

magpiecottage

Scudgie wrote: »

'Albany Assistance is not your Insurance Company, it is a claims management company and I believe you were passed on to it by your Insurance Broker when reporting the incident. Therefore, unfortunately, your claim was not made under your own motor insurance policy which would have constitutes a regulated activity'

You tell us you were referred by Hastings Direct in its capacity as an intermediary, not an insurer. I wonder whether FOS would have accepted the complaint.

There is, though, a question of whether Hastings Direct received a commission from Albany. If it did, and did not disclose it to you, then you may be able to argue that the commission should be passed back to you.

Legal_Ombudsman

Quentin wrote: »

Isn't the misinformation from Albany itself grounds for allowing a late appeal?

Scudgie wrote: »

Thank you to everyone who has provided advice. I will certainly be contacting the Legal Ombudsman.

Here's details of the letter, dated 30 October 2015, I have today received via email from Albany (I'm refraining from publishing the name of the author): -

'

Not a single word of an apology for the inconvenience they have caused by misinforming me of my rights to complain. This, added to the appalling way they have dealt with my claim, is an absolute disgrace.

Hello Quentin & Scudgie,

Thank you for your recent comments. Our six month time limit only applies if a company advises a complainant about their right to come to the Legal Ombudsman, provides our contact details AND advises that they have six months in which to complain. If the company had not informed Scudgie of all of this, then our 6 month timescale would not have applied and we would be able to accept the complaint outside of this timescale.

If you’re unsure as to who you need to complain to if you have an issue about accident management and repairs, we have produced a useful guide. You can find it at this link:
http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/accident-management-final.pdf