Admiral are asking for settlement costs after 7 years from drink driving accident

Bigwheels1111

I see two options ahead of you.
As above seek legal assistance if possible.
Second, do what my mates uncle did ( he was a gambler and alcoholic).
He had a bed fridge very old tv etc. Waited for the bailiffs and let them take his old stuff away.
They only generally come once.
He then went and got his good stuff from his friends house.

ontheroad1970

Bigwheels1111 said:

I see two options ahead of you.
As above seek legal assistance if possible.
Second, do what my mates uncle did ( he was a gambler and alcoholic).
He had a bed fridge very old tv etc. Waited for the bailiffs and let them take his old stuff away.
They only generally come once.
He then went and got his good stuff from his friends house.

Would that not be contempt of court if those chasing the payment are court bailiffs?

Grey_Critic

ontheroad1970 said:

Bigwheels1111 said:

I see two options ahead of you.
As above seek legal assistance if possible.
Second, do what my mates uncle did ( he was a gambler and alcoholic).
He had a bed fridge very old tv etc. Waited for the bailiffs and let them take his old stuff away.
They only generally come once.
He then went and got his good stuff from his friends house.

Would that not be contempt of court if those chasing the payment are court bailiffs?

Probably fraud as well.

The most sensible suggestion that has been made is seek LEGAL ADVICE - I keep saying we can only express our own opinions. The problem is not going away and the longer you leave it the worse it will get.

Grey_Critic

We seem to have TWO threads for this - which is the correct one?

DullGreyGuy

Grey_Critic said:

We seem to have TWO threads for this - which is the correct one?

they are different people, different stories

Grey_Critic

Both 7 years ago - Both resulted in a Drink/Drive conviction - both being asked to repay?

DullGreyGuy

The other doesn't say it was 7 years ago

The other is only recovering the TL of their car whereas this one they are claiming a large amount for the TP losses

timmytwocalls

DullGreyGuy said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If the OP or their mother has legal cover on their home insurance then they should contact them for advice.

Admirals’s t&cs make it clear that if DD is involved that they can come after both the policy holder and driver to get the 3rd party’s cost back. If the OP does not have the assets then they can go after the main policy holder.

Firstly, the quoted terms are from 2021 and so the OP need to check the 2016 policy... sounds like they are similar based on Admiral's actions but always worth checking.

Secondly, its actually unusual that it doesnt make it clear that they can go after the driver and/or the policyholder. Its not strictly necessary to because the Road Traffic Act does this anyway but most insurers go for the belts, braces and superglue approach of repeating it in the contract so that they have both a contractual and statutory right plus it covers things like an Article 75 insurer which doesnt give them statutory rights.

The statute itself you'd need to look at case law as it says if the insured permits the driver to use the vehicle and so unclear if its a generally allow them or specifically allow on this occasion. For unnamed drivers certainly a general approach is taken but a ND -v- a drunk ND feels slightly different. 

Hi, I was wondering if I could get some advice. I noticed you’re quite knowledgable on this topic. 

The terms for the drink driving clause prior to 2021 were as below: 

“ If an accident happens whilst You or any person entitled to drive under Section 5 of Your current Certificate of Motor Insurance:

is found to be over the prescribed limit for alcohol

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 Judgment, of any claim arising from the accident.” 

And the one from 2021 onwards they have removed the last line: 

“ In those circumstances, We will recover from You or the driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgment, of any claim arising from the accident.”

Does this mean they have stopped chasing drink drivers to recover third part costs? 

I haven’t seen any threads online about them trying to recover third party costs during a drink driving accidents over the past few years. They all seem to be for accidents that have happened prior to 2021. 

There is this case in the financial ombudsman for a claim submitted by the drink driver that was declined however admiral didn’t state they would be recovering the costs for third party. 

2022 case: 

financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4437751.pdf

As opposed to this case from 2017 that admiral were claiming the costs for third party:

financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN1475641.pdf

I’ve had to post the links in this way because I’m new user and it won’t let me post links yet.

I know you mentioned the road traffic act allows them to recover the costs anyways but is there a particular reason you could think of where they would go out their way to remove that last sentence that specifies this in their terms and conditions/drink driving clause? 

DullGreyGuy

There is a funny spoof document out there supposedly from Slaughter and May, one of the world's biggest law firms. It presents the case of asking one of their lawyers to draft something to say "I want to have a burger with you". The wording goes through about 6 iterations by which time its almost a full page of text covering matters like it will be one burger each not a shared burger, that the invitee will not be part of the burger etc etc, it closes with a comment at the bottom that the wording is still imperfect but given the highly complex topic and unrealistic timescales it was the best they could do. 

There will always be tension when creating policy books between the lawyers who want things as detailed as possible and the marketing people that want things as friendly, simple and best sounding as possible. As such there can be many small changes over time as people trade between the two teams. 

Looking at Admiral's current Motor policy there is under the General Conditions section about a right of recovery for losses they are legally obliged to pay but for which there is no cover in the policy. As such there is no need to have the same under the drink driving clause separately. I haven't gone back to look at an earlier wording to see if this is a new clause or more likely it was just removing unnecessary duplication. The other common time when this crystallises is when you let someone else to drive your car who isn't covered by your policy so drink driving isn't unique