Admiral Recovering Costs From Me!

Aylesbury_Duck

I'm going to switch from Admiral once my policy is up in December. Not because I'm a serial drink driver (quite the opposite, I don't even have a small drink before driving because I'm a bit of a lightweight and know that even a small glass of wine or half of beer noticeably dulls my reactions), but because correspondence on threads like this has opened my eyes to what they're like as an insurer. Not that I think they're wrong in this case or that the clause is unfair but because it's quite clear that they'll try and wriggle out of anything they can. Saving £50 or whatever on my annual insurance simply isn't worth it.

foxy-stoat

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I'm going to switch from Admiral once my policy is up in December. Not because I'm a serial drink driver (quite the opposite, I don't even have a small drink before driving because I'm a bit of a lightweight and know that even a small glass of wine or half of beer noticeably dulls my reactions), but because correspondence on threads like this has opened my eyes to what they're like as an insurer. Not that I think they're wrong in this case or that the clause is unfair but because it's quite clear that they'll try and wriggle out of anything they can. Saving £50 or whatever on my annual insurance simply isn't worth it.

Perhaps everyone who insures with Admiral and their group of companies should do the same - they will get the message at some point.

lara.mango19

foxy-stoat wrote: »

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?

I am unsure if anyone has been to court over this

I have been reading the drink driving website link someone has shared and DepressedDad fought it for that long eventually the claim was dropped after the 6 year statute period...

Everyone else follows the liability clause in the Road Traffic Handbook but not Admiral which is why I deem it unfair. The other companies all pay third party liability and just do not cover your car which as I previously stated is more than fair.. but someone who has done the same as me or maybe even worse damage has got off lightly in respect of not being financially crippled purely just through insuring through a different company.

Yes yes I could have and should have read the T&C's but I don't think anyone expects themselves to be in this situation when they take out the policy and I wish I had never ended up in this situation and will be sure never to do it again. You live and you learn.. just harsh expensive lesson

Mercdriver

lara.mango19 wrote: »

I am unsure if anyone has been to court over this

I have been reading the drink driving website link someone has shared and DepressedDad fought it for that long eventually the claim was dropped after the 6 year statute period...

Everyone else follows the liability clause in the Road Traffic Handbook but not Admiral which is why I deem it unfair. The other companies all pay third party liability and just do not cover your car which as I previously stated is more than fair.. but someone who has done the same as me or maybe even worse damage has got off lightly in respect of not being financially crippled purely just through insuring through a different company.

Yes yes I could have and should have read the T&C's but I don't think anyone expects themselves to be in this situation when they take out the policy and I wish I had never ended up in this situation and will be sure never to do it again. You live and you learn.. just harsh expensive lesson

expensive? Yes

Harsh? Perhaps, yes.

You won't get much in the way of sympathy publicly because fo how DD is regarded as an offence.

You can't expect not to be held to account as per a contract that you agreed to, simply because you didn't read it, or decided it wouldn't apply to you because it is something you would never do. But you did, put simply. Like I said I do have sympathy for your position, but you agreed to the terms and if Admiral didn't apply it without a good reason, others who have had to pay it would be up in arms.

In fact in fairness to all of its customers that sign the agreement, Admiral should enforce it. They should give you a method of payment that you can afford.

Joe_Horner

Sadly, it is all a matter of perception.

Yes, they can put exclusions like this. They could also exclude any other "illegal" behaviour such as speeding or tailgating. Far more accidents are caused by excess speed or driving too close than are caused by drink or drugs, so it'd make sense to do so.

But if they excluded those then they'd go bankrupt because almost every driver out there sees those as acceptable and the bad press would cripple them.

marlot

foxy-stoat wrote: »

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 agree. Most collisions involve one or other party breaking the rules of the road. Careless driving would cover many of them. Here are the top ten from 2017:

1. Driver failed to look properly – 42,189 accidents reported
2. Driver failed to judge other person’s path or speed – 21,211 accidents reported
3. Driver was careless, reckless or in a hurry – 17,845 accidents reported
4. Driver had poor turn or maneuver – 15,560 accidents reported
5. Loss of control – 12,151 accidents reported
6. Pedestrian failed to look properly – 8,687 accidents reported
7. Slippery road surface – 7,327 accidents reported
8. Driver was travelling too fast for conditions – 6,468 accidents reported
9. Driver was following too close – 6,040 accidents reported
10. Driver was exceeding speed limit – 5,102 accidents reported

It does seem wrong to apply Ts&Cs differently for just one category of offence. All have the potential to destroy lives.

marlot

Mercdriver wrote: »

...You won't get much in the way of sympathy publicly because fo how DD is regarded as an offence. ...

It is strange that we have some offences which the public regard as much more serious than other ones.



If a person abuses a child they are vilified. Much less so if they abuse an elderly person.
If a person drinks and drives. vs updating facebook, tailgating and speeding.

stripeyfox

marlot wrote: »

I agree. Most collisions involve one or other party breaking the rules of the road. Careless driving would cover many of them. Here are the top ten from 2017:

1. Driver failed to look properly – 42,189 accidents reported
2. Driver failed to judge other person’s path or speed – 21,211 accidents reported
3. Driver was careless, reckless or in a hurry – 17,845 accidents reported
4. Driver had poor turn or maneuver – 15,560 accidents reported
5. Loss of control – 12,151 accidents reported
6. Pedestrian failed to look properly – 8,687 accidents reported
7. Slippery road surface – 7,327 accidents reported
8. Driver was travelling too fast for conditions – 6,468 accidents reported
9. Driver was following too close – 6,040 accidents reported
10. Driver was exceeding speed limit – 5,102 accidents reported

It does seem wrong to apply Ts&Cs differently for just one category of offence. All have the potential to destroy lives.

agree. if ALL insurance companies penalized ALL at fault drivers then we could all have little room for complaint. But this particular thread seems to be a bit lopsided to me.

Admiral are only concerned with screwing money out of people, nothing to do with social justice or punishment of bad behavior.

Joe_Horner

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

So you could take on a second job, sell things, do whatever it takes to make up for the terrible thing that you did, but you’d turn your back on it instead?

Utterly shameful, but sadly I suspect that you just don’t care, which is why you are the sort of person to drink drive.

But exactly the same can be said about someone who crashes and causes damage / injury to someone because they were driving too fast for the conditions, or impatiently up someone else's bum. All are criminal acts.

I'll happily put my hands up and admit that I may have been known to speed at times, or driven too fast for the conditions on occasion. And (shock horror) I've even driven in different times when I was almost certainly over the limit and the local bobby had popped in just before closing time to have a coffee "before he sets up the DD trap" - you've never seen a pub car park clear so quickly!

In all cases, if I'd caused an accident, then it would have been a terrible thing with only my own selfish disregard for the consequences to blame.

But:

• If I was speeding, most people would say "Meh, the speed limits are wrong"
• If I was driving too fast for the conditions they'd say "But you were under the speed limit so you weren't speeding"
• If I was tailgating most people wouldn't even recognise the fact because they all drive too close all of the time
• Only if I was over the drink limit would most people wish 9 circles of hell on me and all my descendants until the end of time.

stripeyfox

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

She chose to commit a criminal act that she knew full well could kill someone.

Drink driving is in the same category as glassing someone in a pub or dangling your baby off a balcony.

It is a massively stupid and selfish act, no more a “mistake” than is rape.

er.....ok mate