Admiral Recovering Costs From Me!

MovingForwards

I will keep it short and (bitter) sweet.

I used to be on an insurance company's panel of solicitors and would fairly regularly receive instructions to claim the outlay from their insured, either by full settlement, instalments or commencing court proceedings and obtaining a CCJ, taking enforcement action to get the money back.

So yes, be prepared, do an income and expenditure list and make an offer to pay instalments.

bigisi

iolanthe07 wrote: »

'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone'.

We all make stupid mistakes in our lives, and of course drink/driving should be punished, but in this case the punishment would seem to be out of proportion and far beyond what the law has exacted. As the OP has said, the consequences of her offence seems much harsher than other dangerous driving offences, such as using a hand held phone.

That's as may be but she knew this when she bought the policy and if she didn't want to be bound by it there were two options:

- Don't accept the terms and conditions and buy a policy elsewhere

- Don't drink and drive which means these specific terms would never be an issue.

As it is, she did accept the terms and did drink and drive so did so full in the knowledge they could chase her for the amount they have paid out.

stripeyfox

AdrianC wrote: »

Like I said - the time to think about that was when choosing which insurer to give your business to. You had 14 days after receiving the Ts & Cs during which you could have cancelled and bought elsewhere.

Your post-event attempt at damage limitation is akin to deciding you only want to pay for basic third party cover, then wondering why theft or fire isn't paid out, or why they aren't paying for damage to your car.


OK... There's a "but" coming, isn't there?


...and there we go...


That depends on the size of the claim they paid. If they paid £5k, they'll reclaim £5k. If they paid £30k, they'll reclaim £30k.


That's a different question entirely. Your ability to pay does not affect your liability. This is not about you.

Like I said - if you refuse to pay, you will be taken to court for the debt. If you are found liable, then you may be able to negotiate payments. If you cannot, then you may need to look at insolvency.

It's very easy to sit there making snarky remarks about reading T&C's etc, and no doubt you are 100% correct. But of course, in the real world, people rarely scrutinise the details and may end up paying a heavy price for it. I doubt even if someone did read the T&C's and discover the clause that they'd say "this is no good for me, I need a policy which covers me if I smash the car up while I'm leathered. I'm off to cancel"

The OP made a mistake. I abhor drunk driving and have lost a member of my family to it. But even I cannot put hand on heart and say that I haven't done it. Driven to work the morning after a few too many.

Everyone knows the consequences. You could lose your license.You could kill someone. You could go to prison. You could lose your job. Facing financial ruin is a pretty unforeseen consequence of committing this crime. I'm not saying whether that is fair or not. A quick search of the internet will show Admiral are pretty underhand they way they go after people.

The OP raises a reasonable point, whilst acknowledging their error or judgement.

My advice (and I'm not an expert) to the OP would be to seek legal advice as and when they do pursue you. Get detailed breakdowns of costs (as there seems to be others who have experienced Admiral's rather clumsy attempts at calculating them).

Good luck

iolanthe07

bigisi wrote: »

That's as may be but she knew this when she bought the policy and if she didn't want to be bound by it there were two options:

- Don't accept the terms and conditions and buy a policy elsewhere

- Don't drink and drive which means these specific terms would never be an issue.

As it is, she did accept the terms and did drink and drive so did so full in the knowledge they could chase her for the amount they have paid out.

OK, but come on, realistically, who reads all the small print before accepting the terms of a policy (or indeed taking out a loan?) I do, but then I'm a bit of an anorak; I suspect that most people, if they're honest, don't.

AdrianC

stripeyfox wrote: »

I'm not saying whether that is fair or not. A quick search of the internet will show Admiral are pretty underhand they way they go after people.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is now a personal opinion, rather than a dispassionate explanation...

This is just one of the many reasons I would not give Admiral the time of day or the steam off my urine. They are the Ryanair of insurers.

...and back to dispassionate explanation...

Get detailed breakdowns of costs (as there seems to be others who have experienced Admiral's rather clumsy attempts at calculating them).

Any claimant launching any financial claim in court needs to prove the figure they are claiming to the court's satisfaction.

If the OP decides to negotiate prior to court, to reduce the costs element of what they may eventually owe, then of course the claimed sum is part of that negotiation. It may well be that the claimant will accept both a reduced figure and a payment period.

But there is zero benefit in hoping this will somehow go away IF it ever comes into play, rather than what appears to be a hypothetical at the moment. Until it does, there's no point dwelling.

Mercdriver

iolanthe07 wrote: »

OK, but come on, realistically, who reads all the small print before accepting the terms of a policy (or indeed taking out a loan?) I do, but then I'm a bit of an anorak; I suspect that most people, if they're honest, don't.

But why should some who don't bother reading Ts and Cs not be bound by the negative aspects of a contract while the rest of us are? I have sympathy with the OP and I'm not going to join the few on here with pitchforks and lit torches, but you can't simply expect immunity from a contract which you have agreed to on the basis that you didn't bother reading it.

Sea_Shell

stripeyfox wrote: »

I doubt even if someone did read the T&C's and discover the clause that they'd say "this is no good for me, I need a policy which covers me if I smash the car up while I'm leathered. I'm off to cancel"

How True!!

steve1500

D & D will only be the tip of the iceberg. Bet Admiral are thinking


If they use a mobile phone and have an accident we won't pay for that either

How many people have been killed & injured with people on their mobiles.

Think some research has shown being on your mobile is more dangerous than just being over the drink limit

foxy-stoat

steve1500 wrote: »

D & D will only be the tip of the iceberg. Bet Admiral are thinking


If they use a mobile phone and have an accident we won't pay for that either

How many people have been killed & injured with people on their mobiles.

Think some research has shown being on your mobile is more dangerous than just being over the drink limit

Why not go the whole way and have a clause, "if you break the law and have an accident we will come after you for all our costs"

I would say that would be an unfair term in any contract and if one insurer did that then they may well lose all their business when the customers read the T's&C's, unless every insurer had the same clause.

Maybe the Admiral clause is an unfair term, has any one tested it in a court?

foxy-stoat

https://www.forum.drinkdriving.org/threads/admiral-insurance-drink-and-drugs-policy.34185/page-2

First post was in 2011 and its still current now !

Interesting reading, you are not alone OP.