Admiral Recovering Costs From Me!

Sea_Shell

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

And yes, this can be tens or hundreds of thousands.

Hopefully after some reflection you will see that this is only fair, they do not cover you for what happened, so it’s down to you to pay.

An expensive lesson, I agree, but morally the correct outcome.

But I can see that in some cases the punishment does not fit the crime. Example, you're over the DD limit by 1...so fail the test and be charged with DD. At that time you'd collided with a listed building (no injuries to anyone) causing structural damage and the repair bill comes to £1,000,000. You lose your home, your life savings, everything.

Proportionally, what other crime would come close to that level of punishment???

Also, Admiral are just excluding this one "law", so if you'd been done for Dangerous Driving, or using a mobile...all illegal...you WOULD be covered!! So Admiral policyholders can blast through a residential estate at 70mph, killing 3 people and be fully covered. Still fair??

stripeyfox

I'd never considered this consequence of a drink driving accident.

Maybe the threat of financial ruin would be an extra deterrent to those who may be tempted to get behind the wheel after drinking?

However, a quick read up on it shows that Admiral are perhaps more concerned about their profits than any social justice or punishment

some useful info here (some if it a bit old, but the thread is recently updated)


http://https://www.forum.drinkdriving.org/threads/admiral-insurance-drink-and-drugs-policy.34185/page-5

steve1500

Only the Admiral Group of Companies have this clause.

This happened to my daughter five or six years ago. The bill was in the region of 30k.

I got the bills of how the amount was arrived at. It was bordering on fraudulent & some were clearly fraudulent.

After a number of years haggling we got the bill down & she agreed a payment plan of £50 per month.

They threatened to take her to court & she would end up with a CCJ, we pointed out if they did that she would lose her job.

We told them if they did that and she lost her job, she would immediately bankrupt herself, she had no assets.

AdrianC

lara.mango19 wrote: »

About a year ago I got convicted of drink driving.

So this conviction arise from being breath-tested after a collision? Regardless of your blood-alcohol level at the time, were you held liable - wholly or in part - by the insurers for that collision?

Or is this a hypothetical future situation?

I was with Admiral Insurance and they have a clause in their contract saying they reserve the right to recover third party costs from you.

Yes, they do. And they are free to do so.
Will they invoke it in any given claim? That depends. Anecdotes either way won't help you, because all cases will differ. But if there's a conviction directly arisen from the collision, they would be well within their rights to do so. Their decision may well depend upon your culpability in the collision, and on the blood-alcohol level recorded.

Obviously, I will not get money back for my car which is completely more than fair but for third party damages and whiplash claims which can escalate resulting in extreme debt seems very harsh as if I was to have crashed while using my mobile phone etc I would have been covered for this and I know no other insurance use this clause and if they did, they have now removed it.

The time to be concerned about that was when you bought the insurance.

You chose to buy insurance from a provider who reserve the right to recharge any third party costs to you in event of a collision that occurred while you were over the drink-drive limit. You had 14 days to cancel the policy if it didn't suit your needs, after you received the policy Ts & Cs.

in the event that a bill for over 10k is issued, I will not be able to pay it back as I have no savings, no assets i.e house etc, earn just over NMW, rent and have no surplus money

If you are taken to court by the insurer, and you lose the claim, then you either pay promptly and in full, or you will have a CCJ registered against you. You may be able to negotiate payment terms as a part of that judgement. Failing that, you may need to consider some form of personal insolvency arrangement.

Full-time minimum wage is £14,500 take-home pay annually, £1,200/month. Across, say, five years repaying £10,000 would be just over £165/month.

Let me turn the question around... Why do you think it fair for the insurer to have to foot the bill, given that you broke both the law and the terms you agreed to when you bought the policy?

lara.mango19

I am in my 20's with no assets no house etc working at an estate agents for just over NMW. I am in no means 'loaded' and therefore would probably be pushed to bankruptcy or debt relief order depending on what the best circumstances for me are at the time but then they do not benefit anything from this either

Yes I understand I should have looked into the T&C's at the time but I have seen many other threads with the same people making the same mistakes

Although liable, I do think it is unfair to financially cripple someone who has already been punished when more severe crimes do not get this form of punishment especially after the original punishment

AdrianC

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Proportionally, what other crime would come close to that level of punishment???

Is it a "punishment"?

Or is it simply having to face the direct consequence of your actions?

An insurer simply indemnify you against those consequences, subject to terms and conditions that are mutually agreed when you buy the policy. They cannot be expected to indemnify you outside of those terms, can they?

foxy-stoat

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Wow, just been doing some googling on this and yes, it would appear that they can seek to recover ALL their costs from the drunk driver, as cover is voided. One claim was for £197,000!!!!

Cases have even gone to Ombudsman and been found in Admiral's favour!

Basically, by taking out one of there policies, you're giving UNLIMITED liability, if found to be DD.

I think all you can do is wait and see what the bill will be and be thankful no-one was left with life-changing injuries or that any property was damaged.

You can 100% protect yourself from risking all of your money, home and any other assets in this situation:

DONT DRINK AND DRIVE.

lara.mango19

Yes although it is the consequence of my actions, what I am saying is, they are the only insurer to have this clause and no other insurers are against paying third party claims. If I was to crash while texting or doing my makeup etc, they would still pay my third party costs even though it still against the law to do this

I am not looking for a way out, I understand I will have to pay however I am just wondering what are the odds of them wanting £30k etc from someone who does not have the means to pay and what the options would be. I take full responsibility for my actions and will never do this again, it has been a harsh lesson with the punishment from the law and me emotionally punishing myself every day until this will finally be over. Imagine if this was your child that did this, surely you would find it unfair them being hit with excessive debt for a consequence of the first and only thing they will ever do wrong.

Thanks for all the responses so far

foxy-stoat

lara.mango19 wrote: »

Although liable, I do think it is unfair to financially cripple someone who has already been punished when more severe crimes do not get this form of punishment especially after the original punishment

Cause its unfair - its unfair to endanger yourself, your passengers other road users and their cars/motorcycles and any one else on the road, pathways or houses any where near when you drive drunk.

Any way its a civil matter which does not involve the police if an insurance company decides to take you for all of your money and assets if they can get some of their money back.

lara.mango19

Yes of course that is unfair as well it was a stupid mistake I will never make again and encourage other people to avoid making the same mistake as me

If I can make an affordable monthly payment for a debt that has not been over exaggerated then I will happily make this payment however as per Steve's comment, they try and make people may for more than they need to