Making a claim with Admiral

BlueeSteve

Admiral Insurance is all that is bad about insurance companies. We have home, multi-car and travel insurance with them and we have now made our first claim (travel) and the experience has left us worried about any other potential claim and guaranteed we will move away from them as soon as policies expire.

My wife's golf bag and one club were damaged by baggage handlers on a recent trip. The bag is only used for holidays so it is not urgent, but the club is used every week, so we had to buy a replacement irrespective of any insurance payment.

We submitted a claim and included photographs and a receipt for the bag, having lost the other receipt. We were told they would reply within thirty days.

We chased them a month later and had it pointed out that it is thirty WORKING days. On the thirtieth working day they emailed asking for a receipt for the club, which we told them we didn't have but can provide the receipt proving we had to buy a replacement. They also asked for confirmation of damage from our "travel provider". How on earth can we get that? The damage was only discovered after we left the airport.

Worse still, they said once they had those they would contact us within 30 working days "to discuss the next steps of (the) claim".

I accept that our inability to provide a receipt for one broken item leaves insurers vulnerable, but providing photographs and a receipt for the replacement should count for something, and this "thirty working days" nonsense is disgraceful.

They are clearly waging a war of attrition to do their best to avoid any payout. Whatever happened to "Utmost good faith", which I as a customer still adhere to but Admiral as an insurer seems to have abandoned?

What really scares me is, this is a petty little claim; how would they behave if I had a serious claim on my car insurance, involving third parties, court etc? Imagine having that hanging over you for chunks of "Thirty working days".

It's now 66 days since the incident that caused our travel claim and Admiral Insurance is still using delaying tactics to avoid paying out. Take a look at the FB group I HATE ADMIRAL INSURANCE for more disgraceful stories.

DullGreyGuy

Unfortunately as your last post included a boycott it got deleted before I could hit the post button.

Admiral have always been a cheap and cheerful insurer but if you accept that and dont expect champagne for lemonade prices then they were ok. Used them for Motor for a few years and made one claim without any problem. They have now expanded their product line and I am not a fan of the fact they new products like Home and Travel, are written out of Gibraltar 

Having a receipt for a replacement proves nothing at all... I could go out tomorrow and by the Mrs a Hermes handbag, that doesn't prove she ever owned one before. Having the damaged item is good, it's easier to argue than for theft/loss claims but still I can go down the local scrap merchant and pick up some damaged items I could then claim were mine pre-damage. Photos pre-damage are also good... similarly if you have photos or receipts of other clubs that show it's consistent with your other items can also help. You wouldnt be surprised at the number of people with a home full of Elizabeth Duke jewellery etc but its the £30,000 Rolex that was stolen.

Travel insurance is a backstop, it covers what you cannot get back elsewhere. It's therefore not surprising that they are asking about why you didn't try and claim from the airline as the company that damaged it. Under international law you had to present your claim to the airline in writing within 7 days.

Good faith remains... they presumably haven't asked for your medical records to check you declared all your pre-existing conditions? In principle they could as failing to declare something (intentionally or recklessly) would allow them to void the policy. Good faith doesn't mean blind faith, the common pool you've paid into only is able to support other customers if they only payout on genuine claims and stop fraud.

Ultimately you should register a complaint, the process will be in your policy book

mrogers1973

Completely agree. I’ve just taken out my first Admiral policy and my son smashed his Apple Watch - however I’ve been told it’s not covered as his a ‘gadget’ not a ‘personal possession’ wth. I’ve had a cheaper cover elsewhere for years but thought I’d upgraded the cover as my other son lost his Apple Watch last year and it was covered with no quibbles with Stay Sure. Obviously a lot of clauses in the ‘very small print’ with Admiral - I’d never buy a policy with them again. 

BarelySentientAI

All insurers have a lot of small print.

Very few customers read it, and then they complain when what they bought wasn't actually the policy they thought it was.

Personal possessions not including portable electronics (or many other "high risk" items) is not that unusual on cheap policies - and many people buy whichever policy is cheapest on the comparison site without checking what it does or does not include.

liveletlive

I appreciate everyone's opinions on this forum, and I do not intend to offend anyone.

However, I believe that members of this forum are often too lenient on insurers. Insurers frequently employ tactics that obscure the truth.

Insurance documents should be clear, particularly in the key facts document.

Example:

When you take out accidental damage cover as part of your home insurance, it is reasonable to assume you are covered for accidental damage. However, unless you meticulously scrutinise the documents, you may not realise that DIY accidental damage is excluded.

If insurers know that 7 out of 10 people will be misled by the wording, the responsibility lies with them, and they should be held accountable for the ambiguity. There are laws designed to protect consumers, but many people, including the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), are unaware of them. Resorting to court often becomes necessary, which undermines the purpose of the FOS.

Please stop defending large organisations that rely on technicalities to exploit consumers. Dig deep and stand your ground. Insurance companies must be held accountable. Through personal experience, I am realising how biased the FOS process can be unless the claim is very small.

When you raise a complaint with FOS, make it very clear that you are confident and will challenge all decisions obviously do you research, read the FOS handbook, at the moment the FOS just want to close cases. Whats quicker fighting an insurance company with a legal team or joe bloggs. Unfortunately the FOS needs an overhauled, more strictly governed and empowered.

Here are few bits of law that I find very helpful:

- Ambiguity in the terms should favour the insured.
- Insurance terms should be interpreted narrowly.
- Independent expert opinions should be valued more than in house paid for expert opinions.
- FOS must do whats fair and sensible not follow technicalities in the contract.
Google these and find the related case law to support your arguments. 

I am not a legal expert so take my advice with a pinch of salt. 

liveletlive

PS:

Check your home insurance to see if you have legal cover as this will cover contract disputes.

Its not always a good idea to have insurance with the same company as they have clauses in saying they will not take legal action against themselves. Sounds like this is what you have done, in this case check the definition of "US, Our, we" if they have are different limited companies then make them fight them selves.

BarelySentientAI

liveletlive said:

Please stop defending large organisations that rely on technicalities to exploit consumers. Dig deep and stand your ground. Insurance companies must be held accountable. 

No.

I will defend the fact that contracts mean what they say and that not bothering to read the contract is not a mitigating factor.

Otherwise, what's the point in any contractual arrangement at all?  "The customer is always right" is a nice (if useless) sentiment in retail, but it's clearly not true.

If you want to take up advocacy, then that's your prerogative.  It's a very different thing from giving useful advice though, which is what those of us with the expertise will continue to do.

DullGreyGuy

liveletlive said:
Please stop defending large organisations that rely on technicalities to exploit consumers.

Terms and conditions are not technicalities, they are important legal matters.  According to the .GOV.UK website only 12% of people read their travel insurance terms, so please stop saying its insurers creating technicalities when in most cases its consumers simply not reading what they've bought then trying to argue pointless things when they realise their mistake.

Ultimately people buy insurance on price, if someone wants to sell at a lower price the easiest way to do that is by reducing what is covered given for Home, Pet, Motor etc claims represents over 60% of the companies costs and the next biggest items are cost of sale and tax which insurers have very little control over. 

There is a good reason why 99.06% of motor claims are accepted but "only" 75% of Travel claims are and thats because its a more complex product but bought on the same price is king basis. 

liveletlive said:

When you take out accidental damage cover as part of your home insurance, it is reasonable to assume you are covered for accidental damage. However, unless you meticulously scrutinise the documents, you may not realise that DIY accidental damage is excluded.

Never seen one that excludes DIY but it's hardly having to meticulously scrutinise documents to be able to read 1 page and lookup maybe 2 defined terms. Looking at a random Home policy that I happen to have open, which bits of these exclusions are you struggling to understand from the AD Buildings section:

We don’t pay claims for:

• Accidental damage caused by someone that you lend or rent all or part of your home to.

• Damage caused by chewing, scratching, tearing or fouling by pets.

• Accidental damage if the property is unoccupied.

• Cutting down or taking away all or part of a fallen tree, unless it has caused damage to your buildings.

The only thing you need to do is lookup the term unoccupied which states property hasn't been or won't be lived in for 60 or more consecutive days. Now if you choose not to read the definition and go on a 6 month round the world cruise who's fault is that really? If you're being honest?

liveletlive said:
I am realising how biased the FOS process can be unless the claim is very small.

The FOS generally are considered biased, towards the customer. This is because their mandate is to judge based on fair outcomes not the letter of the law, a fact they often point out in Section 75 claims where there is a potential for another party to have invalidated the S75 claim. 

For an insurance example, most budget policies state matching sets are not covered, so if you damage 1 chair from a set of 6 your insurer is liable for only paying the value of that one chair. Higher priced policies exist that state if the 1 chair cannot be repaired/replaced then they'll cover the value of the 6. The FOS has so often ruled that the insurer must make a 50% contribution to the other 5 even when the contract states no cover at all that many insurers have now changed their terms to match the FOS's stance. 

liveletlive said:
I am not a legal expert so take my advice with a pinch of salt. 

BarelySentientAI said:

If you want to take up advocacy, then that's your prerogative.  It's a very different thing from giving useful advice though, which is what those of us with the expertise will continue to do.

Ultimately it is their prerogative but they are really bad at it

liveletlive

@DullGreyGuy
@BarelySentientAI

LV Home Insurance differentiates between Accidental Damage and DIY Accidental Damage, creating a nuanced policy landscape that can be confusing for policyholders.

In my extensive dealings with LV's range of insurance products, I have repeatedly encountered a troubling pattern: the necessary documentation is often withheld until the point of claim initiation. This delay in providing critical information creates a significant disadvantage for policyholders, who are left uninformed about the specifics of their coverage until it is too late.

Although it is understood that a contract is a legally binding agreement, my primary concern is not with altering the contract terms but with the inherent ambiguities within it. These ambiguities are often leveraged by LV to maximise their own benefit, often at the expense of the policyholder's understanding and expectations. 

Despite the existence of laws intended to prevent such exploitation, enforcement by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) appears inconsistent and sometimes inadequate. Consequently, policyholders find themselves with little choice but to seek justice through the courts. This route, however, is frequently beyond the financial reach of the average consumer, effectively denying them the protection and fairness they are entitled to under the law.

The systemic issue of ambiguity and delayed disclosure of policy details necessitates a more robust regulatory approach to ensure that insurance companies like LV cannot continue to operate in this manner. Policyholders deserve transparency and fairness, and until these are guaranteed, the risk of exploitation remains unacceptably high.

@blue_haddock
Fight your corner, be critical of your own views more than theirs so you have evidence and logic backing up your views. They will want to wear you down, don't back off at the same time as I have said check yourself to make you are respectful of everyones times. Opposing views are always helpful as they will help you create a robust argument.

(NB: missing/late documents etc is all facts, that LV have acknowledged in writing. LV have also acknowledged there data control processes need review as well as staff retrained)

DullGreyGuy

liveletlive said:

@DullGreyGuy
@BarelySentientAI

LV Home Insurance differentiates between Accidental Damage and DIY Accidental Damage, creating a nuanced policy landscape that can be confusing for policyholders.

LV Direct have all their policy documents on their website and do not differentiate between DIY and other forms of AD. Like most, their basic policy only covers limited AD with full cover an optional extra but their higher tier products include full cover as standard. 

If you are buying via a broker or other intermediary you are complaining about the wrong organisation, its the seller that provides the policy book and most do also have them all listed on their website (less so with traditional brokers)

liveletlive said:
In my extensive dealings with LV's range of insurance products, I have repeatedly encountered a troubling pattern: the necessary documentation is often withheld until the point of claim initiation. This delay in providing critical information creates a significant disadvantage for policyholders, who are left uninformed about the specifics of their coverage until it is too late.

All terms are provided at point of purchase, thats the idea of the cooling off period, however almost all are available pre-purchase too.

liveletlive said:
Despite the existence of laws intended to prevent such exploitation, enforcement by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) appears inconsistent and sometimes inadequate.

As what you are alleging simply isn't true.