Admiral Recovering Costs From Me!

Car_54

Nikond4 wrote: »

Sorry to say but i think Admiral are out of order on this one as it opens it up to fraud all day long,

The 3rd party have made a claim, which Admiral have paid or will pay. Admiral will then attempt to recover their costs from the OP.


Surely the only scope for fraud is in the TP claim. Whether or not Admiral pursue the OP does not affect that one way or the other.

Arklight

One of my friends, whose strength of opinion on topics isn't always directly supported by actual facts, is adamant that if you are involved in a crash and disclose to your insurer that you drank any alcohol at all, within the preceding 24 hours, then you are not covered.

tonyh66

Laura what's done is done I will not pass judgement,. My advice is to go bankrupt if it comes to it, it will not ruin your life in the long term.

Car_54

Arklight wrote: »

One of my friends, whose strength of opinion on topics isn't always directly supported by actual facts, is adamant that if you are involved in a crash and disclose to your insurer that you drank any alcohol at all, within the preceding 24 hours, then you are not covered.

Your friend's reputation for disregard of facts seems to be well founded.
Admiral's Ts and Cs actually say

"If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 3 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is driving your vehicle and:

- is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
- is driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
- fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason

No cover under the policy will be provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Law. In those circumstances, we will recover from you or the driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgement, of any claim arising from the accident."
No mention there of 24 hours, nor indeed of "disclosure" by the customer.

foxy-stoat

tonyh66 wrote: »

Laura what's done is done I will not pass judgement,. My advice is to go bankrupt if it comes to it, it will not ruin your life in the long term.

I did suggest this a while back.

Kentish_Dave

Brilliant, now people are suggesting bankruptcy as a neat way to wriggle out of responsibilities, rather than arranging a payment plan.

Does no-one accept responsibility for their actions nowadays?

AdrianC

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

Brilliant, now people are suggesting bankruptcy as a neat way to wriggle out of responsibilities, rather than arranging a payment plan.

Bankruptcy or an IVA are not a "neat way" for anything - and if there are funds to repay, even over time, then the administrators of the insolvency will make those payments.

CardinalWolsey

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

Brilliant, now people are suggesting bankruptcy as a neat way to wriggle out of responsibilities, rather than arranging a payment plan.

Does no-one accept responsibility for their actions nowadays?

Well, this is "Money Saving Expert" after all...

Mercdriver

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

Well, this is "Money Saving Expert" after all...

Imagine the APR after the OP becomes a discharged bankrupt. That wouldn't be very MSE. Notwithstanding the fact that the administrators will check what amount the OP can actually afford.

Also those suggesting bankruptcy remember what happens to a mortgage when you go bankrupt.

AdrianC

Mercdriver wrote: »

Also those suggesting bankruptcy remember what happens to a mortgage when you go bankrupt.

The OP has already stated they aren't a home-owner, and given their lack of assets and low income, they're very unlikely to be in the near future.