Problems with admiral

agarnett

Quentin,

I questioned you at the outset because you were being lazy and unnecessarily critical of a perfectly understandable complaint of an ordinary punter.

My contribution to this thread has made you think and others think and now there is some hope for the OP.

I don't mind being corrected, but I do mind puerile use of the word 'scaremongering' when used against me. In fact it is a word seen all too often on internet forums along with words like "troll" which say more about the limited communication skills, or at least irritability of the user of the word than of the intended target.

My qualification to pontificate began with the studies and examinations I took in general insurance so long ago that they were perhaps even before later practitioners, perhaps of an era where chosen names like yours were in vogue, were out of your short trousers I shouldn't wonder :P!

My pontifications are based on an excellent grounding in principles and practice of insurance, and may have turned a thread you clumsily almost killed off by calling the first post a rant, into a useful thread for both the OP and others.

You modern day practitioners have between you allowed all kinds of unexpected charging practices to develop in the business since I left the sharp end, so I can easily admit that I didn't know whether modern day practice is for an insurer in settling a write off claim to

1. first take away the remainder of a full year's premium as an offset to the write off settlement, but then
2. hold the punters hand and say there there ... of course we'll give you credit of the same value towards reinstating the policy if you get a replacement vehicle, or

1. first take away the remainder of a full year's premium as an offset to the write off settlement, but then
2. conveniently forget to tell the customer to come back for an insurance unexpired time on risk (not cash) credit if they should ever manage to find another thousand quid to put with the misely £350 insurance cheque to buy a replacement vehicle!

My experience of negotiating a write off claim with Admiral is but two months old and because I was negotiating it as a late notification, some months after the accident and after both MOT had expired and policy was within days of expiry, and because the vehicle was no longer required and no replacement was being obtained, I am afraid the question didn't arise. Admiral arranged for it to be disposed of and a very fair settlement was agreed net of excess which wasn't the number they first thought of!

Admiral, did in that case, perform admirably at my every suggestion to assist their loyal policyholders, who were elderly and had decided to give up driving after that last prang. I like that kind of positively discriminating service from an insurer.

You've gone all pear-shaped over some principle you wish to assert I have stated incorrectly, but which of the above two alternative scenarios do you think is the more likely practice - especially since this thread seems to have already uncovered the fact that no-one at Admiral seems to have advised grdY30's partner that they even had a chance to get their excess back?

rs65

Perhaps you should acknowledge every time you post that your knowledge is based on legislation that is 110 years and has changed.

agarnett wrote: »

especially since this thread seems to have already uncovered the fact that no-one advised the grdY30's partner that they even had a chance to get their excess back?

The OPs partner chose to use a direct insurer. They have either chosen or rejected uninsured loss recovery. I would hope they have researched this to decide either way.

agarnett

rs65 wrote: »

Perhaps you should acknowledge every time you post that your knowledge is based on legislation that is 110 years and has changed.

OK - you are sparring for a fight now too rs65?

I could Google, and perhaps may even be more efficient at Googling than you so would get their first, but perhaps you should now link directly to the piece of legislation that has tripped me up the tiniest little bit?

And then perhaps you could list your qualifications for pontificating?

The OPs partner chose to use a direct insurer. They have either chosen or rejected uninsured loss recovery. I would hope they have researched this to decide either way.

Going direct is like DIY abortion 110 years ago I suppose in your book?

Climb down off your high horse and engage with real customers. Once upon a time motor insurance wordings were almost standard across all insurers. There was no uninsured loss recovery or motor legal expenses cover to speak of when I started in the industry. What was however different was that there were hard and fast principles and practice and precedents for them, cross industry agreement on how they should be applied, and even the customers were able to make fairly informed decisions based upon those things.

Everything since then has been a complex development of wordings and offerings and practices and "reforms" and erosion of cross industry agreements, which now mean these things differ enormously between different insurers and advisers which is beyond almost every non-insurance qualified person to research in the way you gaily suggest is required.

Insurance practitioners direct and otherwise owe it to punters to explain things properly, not just to tickboxes and wave it through as if the punter has made a conscious and informed decision to decline something they really ought to have bought.

If you sell insurance you should realise your duty goes much further than to just quote and sign them up.

rs65

agarnett wrote: »

Climb down off your high horse and engage with real customers.

This is an internet forum. What has this to do with real customers.

The OP came here for a rant and then came back and explained it further. Your out-of-date essays made no difference.

How things worked 50 years ago in your distant past are irrelevant to the OP, and everyone else.

agarnett

FCII? ... snap. Except mine was by examination and yours was earned by virtue of further years in the business after earning an ACII? Did you qualify in general branch including motor insurance, or some other branch of insurance? No matter - you should know better than most, but can you Google with the best of us?

I'd still like to see that piece of legislation that requires credit to be given for unexpired time on risk after a write off - I have no problems accepting it may be established practice, and it has only arisen not because I said so, but because I took what Admiral are reported to have done as the latest practice. So I would simply be curious to see the legislation.


Anyway ... less of the willy-waving in front of the customers.

How things worked 50 years ago created the well trodden paths which enabled you to call yourself a Fellow of the Chartered Insurance Institute today, young man or woman. The ways of the industry over the intervening years have not all been good.

Insurance pros who call out customers for their "rants" may still have lots to learn. Insurance pros who disrespect their elders and betters need to look down from their self-appointed pedestals occasionally - there's a long way to fall for those who have no visible means of support.

This internet forum is frequented by real customers - are you deliberately trying to wind them up, or have you devised a checklist now for grdY30 to follow to get the best result from this point on for his partner?

dacouch

agarnett wrote: »

I'd still like to see that piece of legislation that requires credit to be given for unexpired time on risk after a write off - I have no problems accepting it may be established practice, and it has only arisen not because I said so, but because I took what Admiral are reported to have done as the latest practice. So I would simply be curious to see the legislation.

No legislation change as such (Barring Unfair Contracts Law), the Ombudsman laid down guidance that Insurers should allow customers to transfer their replacement vehicle onto the remainder of the existing policy (Assuming it was a vehicle they would normally cover)

rs65

agarnett wrote: »

I'd still like to see that piece of legislation that requires credit to be given for unexpired time on risk after a write off - I have no problems accepting it may be established practice, and it has only arisen not because I said so, but because I took what Admiral are reported to have done as the latest practice. So I would simply be curious to see the legislation.

There is no such legislation and if you were up-to-date, you would know that.

Your comments were based on old legislation but insurers are now responding to FOS decisions.

rs65

agarnett wrote: »

This internet forum is frequented by real customers - are you deliberately trying to wind them up

The only thing I have done is correct your incorrect comments - to help the OP.

Why so much aggression.

agarnett

rs65 wrote: »

There is no such legislation and if you were up-to-date, you would know that.

Your comments were based on old legislation ...

Well no actually, they were based on the OP's reports of what Admiral seems to have done which is either fair do's or not fair do's at this point - which is it?

...but insurers are now responding to FOS decisions.

Yeah you got that right - some good and some not so good eh? All of them borne out of heaps of files that should never have reached FOS in the first place if practitioners were practising correctly and could truly think for themselves instead of blindly following their employers' skewed take on things.

OK so you are not old-money Fellowship material but you have the letters anyway (I can tell from the way you write with that rather over-pompous sense of your own in-datedness;) )

The difference between you and I is that I do not have to remain up to date because I don't practice, and when I get told something enlightening such as dacouch was able to just tell me, I can appreciate it more easily than someone banging on about change of legislation when there hasn't been one.

Why not truly help the OP, rs65 instead of using the word "rant" to describe him or her and instead of criticising me as if I was already on your favorite scrap heap?

Be Magnanimous on MSE! Recap for the benefit of all humanity, the steps the OP and partner need to take :T

rs65

Once again, why the aggression?

agarnett wrote: »

Why not truly help the OP

I have truly helped the OP. If I hadn't corrected your advice about premium that has been irrevocably taken (based on 1906 legislation), they would be £550 worse off.

Please, no more personal and offensive comments.