Admiral Recovering Costs From Me!

Mercdriver

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

True, but people often read advice given in threads and then follow that advice without posting. So I figured it was no harm to draw attention to a major drawback to the "easy" option of bankruptcy.

System

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

I think it is unfair that a company should have to pay out £1000s and even potentially £1,000,000s if it were a fatal accident because someone drunk or stoned decided to get behind the wheel of a car. In my view ALL insurance companies should have this term as a part of their policies, every single one of them.

System

Nikond4 wrote: »

any sign of dodgy tyres and such and sometimes your claim would be rejected Ive seen a M series BMW Coupe the old Z3 shape but a M series written off been over numerous times on its roof in a field and they wouldnt cover it due to the tyres on the wires etc.

You mean the wires that were steel and would give about as much grip on tarmac as you'd have driving on sheet ice, the compound of the rubber surrounding those wires giving infinitely less grip than the compound used for the tread? Too right they don't pay out for such a dangerous vehicle which shouldn't have been on the road.

System

lara.mango19 wrote: »

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.

No. My son would have had a royal bollocking followed with a "tough luck, better get some overtime in then hadn't you?" In fact my son wouldn't even likely bring it up because he knows that he would be told that it he is an adult and therefore has to face the consequences of his actions. I wouldn't find it unfair at all.

I would point out you got off lightly. You could have seriously injured or killed someone, something which no amount of money can compensate for. If I were you I'd stop whining about being badly done to and consider how lightly you've got out of this.

System

marlot wrote: »

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

No it doesn't. All of those are from an error of judgement when driving which may be a momentary lapse of concentration. Drink driving is you deliberately making yourself too intoxicated to drive and then making a conscious decision, choosing to drive whilst unfit to. Completely different.

Jackmydad

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

Tarambor wrote: »

I think it is unfair that a company should have to pay out £1000s and even potentially £1,000,000s if it were a fatal accident because someone drunk or stoned decided to get behind the wheel of a car. In my view ALL insurance companies should have this term as a part of their policies, every single one of them.

Ultimately of course the company doesn't pay it. People buying insurance from them pay more to cover it.
That's "us" if we have insurance with them.

And it may be a cliche, but life's not fair in any way shape or form.
Businesses are there to make a profit. Reclaiming any costs they are allowed to is purely a matter of course to them.
No matter how punitive it may feel, it's not meant to be so. It's just "business"
Little consolation to the OP of course.

AdrianC

Tarambor wrote: »

...and then making a conscious deceasing...

Umm... Steady on a sec...

almillar

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.

Indeed. Without passing judgement on the OP individually, their insurer has incurred costs, that have been paid, after OP had a crash, driving whilst drunk. Either OP repays that, or all of Admiral's other policy holders, are subsidising that accident through their premiums.

Of course, everyone who doesn't have an accident in a year, is subsidising people who do, in the round, but there should be limitations to the insurers' liability. Note - I make no comment as to where the line should be. Just that people who think that OP is being chased for the cost, should maybe crowdfund for the OP, since that's what insurance companies would be doing...

AdrianC

almillar wrote: »

...or all of Admiral's other policy holders, are subsidising that accident through their premiums.

Admiral are just a broker. It's their underwriters, their reinsurers, and ultimately the Lloyds syndicates who would otherwise be paying.