Admiral insurance theft of vechicle claim

Madmk1

Hi all,

I have been with admiral for three years now and in that time due to lack of communication with my brother my points were never declared as the policy is a multi car policy...

Now my car has been stolen and its in the stages of going through a settlement. When they rang dvla to check my license it came back with an sp30 cu80 from 2011.. Now they are saying overall cost of this would be £469 roughly 65.97% of the total cost. And now they want to deduct 65.97% from the cars total value... They are valuing the car at 5900 (which I am arguing for more) and they want to deduct over £2000 for the not declaring the points... I'm arguing that doesn't make sense and I feel like I am being robbed... I also had a fault claim in which they paid out £1500 to the third party but didn't check my license then either so I am arguing why it wasn't checked then and why the go ahead was given to the third party payout? Also they made an error with no claim bonuses to which they didn't protect and lost me 8 years bonuses, but after going through recorded phone calls we did ask for them to be protected and it was on their part they wasn't so they have given me my 9 year bonuses back...

So where do I stand with this?

Madmk1

They are trying to say they don't have to pay out at all as the insurance is void due to the points... And I'm arguing why did they make a claim payout in 2013 and not check my license then

Aretnap

See here for the legal situation from the Financial Ombudsman

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/misrepresentation-and-non-disclosure.htm

If the non-disclosure was due to carelessness (sounds like it was) they can indeed deduct a percentage from the settlement to reflect the difference between the premium they would have charged had they known about the convictions, and the premium you actually paid. For a speeding conviction and a mobile phone conviction a difference of 69% doesn't sound implausibly high. So basically yes, they can do it.

Alternatively, if the non-disclosure was deliberate they can void the policy altogether and refuse to pay out at all.

You were lucky that they didn't check last time. The fact that you got away with it then doesn't mean that they're not allowed to check this time round. There are reasons why they would have been less inclined to check last time around. The claim was smaller, so it would not have been worth as much time and effort to investigate. Also it is very difficult for them to avoid a third party claim altogether - if they'd found out they would have to had paid the third party anyway, and then tried to recover a percentage of the money from you, again potentially a lot of effort for not very much money.

dacouch

Aretnap wrote: »

See here for the legal situation from the Financial Ombudsman

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/misrepresentation-and-non-disclosure.htm

If the non-disclosure was due to carelessness (sounds like it was) they can indeed deduct a percentage from the settlement to reflect the difference between the premium they would have charged had they known about the convictions, and the premium you actually paid. For a speeding conviction and a mobile phone conviction a difference of 69% doesn't sound implausibly high. So basically yes, they can do it.

Alternatively, if the non-disclosure was deliberate they can void the policy altogether and refuse to pay out at all.

You were lucky that they didn't check last time. The fact that you got away with it then doesn't mean that they're not allowed to check this time round. There are reasons why they would have been less inclined to check last time around. The claim was smaller, so it would not have been worth as much time and effort to investigate. Also it is very difficult for them to avoid a third party claim altogether - if they'd found out they would have to had paid the third party anyway, and then tried to recover a percentage of the money from you, again potentially a lot of effort for not very much money.

That link has been superceded by the Consumer Insurance Act.

dacouch

How many years have you been insured by Admiral?

Madmk1

3 years I have been with them

Madmk1

Aretnap wrote: »

See here for the legal situation from the Financial Ombudsman

If the non-disclosure was due to carelessness (sounds like it was) they can indeed deduct a percentage from the settlement to reflect the difference between the premium they would have charged had they known about the convictions, and the premium you actually paid. For a speeding conviction and a mobile phone conviction a difference of 69% doesn't sound implausibly high. So basically yes, they can do it.

Alternatively, if the non-disclosure was deliberate they can void the policy altogether and refuse to pay out at all.

You were lucky that they didn't check last time. The fact that you got away with it then doesn't mean that they're not allowed to check this time round. There are reasons why they would have been less inclined to check last time around. The claim was smaller, so it would not have been worth as much time and effort to investigate. Also it is very difficult for them to avoid a third party claim altogether - if they'd found out they would have to had paid the third party anyway, and then tried to recover a percentage of the money from you, again potentially a lot of effort for not very much money.

So what would happen if my car was only worth £500 and it was stolen would they still want to pay only 65.97%

They are saying that cause i have only payed 65.97% towards my premium that is all I'm allowed...

forgotmyname

Basically yes. You failed to declare the points for 3 years. Could be MUCH worse.

They could say you did it deliberately to defraud them. You will have issues getting reasonable insurance quotes with a fraud marker.

dacouch

Madmk1 wrote: »

3 years I have been with them

So did you take out the Admiral policy after the two convictions and in the same year you received the convictions?

Madmk1

dacouch wrote: »

So did you take out the Admiral policy after the two convictions and in the same year you received the convictions?

Yeah but like I said it was my brother who took the policy out and due to lack of communication they weren't notified

dacouch

Madmk1 wrote: »

Yeah but like I said it was my brother who took the policy out and due to lack of communication they weren't notified

It's hardly Admiral's fault you did not declare the convictions, not declaring a conviction shortly after you received it looks suspicious to an Insurer. Not declaring two convictions just after you received them would look very suspicious and could result in your policy being voided with many companies so them paying your claim is a bonus.

Them not checking your licence when you had an accident is not their fault. Very few Insurers would check a licence for an accident so their actions were not untoward. Virtually every Insurer checks licences after a theft claim.

Your best bet is argue the case on the value of the car if the value is not correct.

This link explains how the value should be arrived at

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

I would suggest when you deal with them you're polite and do not try and pass the blame for the not declaring the convictions to them as it will just result in making the person dealing with your claim defensive. The best way to deal with them is to be polite and ask for their help in dealing with a difficult situation. This method is more likely to pay dividends, you may even persuade them to drop the percentage deduction but just deduct the extra premium you should have paid in extra premiums for the convictions from your settlement.

Incidently when looking at the extra premiums for the convictions, you need to take into account the extra due is for the period of three years