Drink driving and insurance

TELLIT01

Does the OP know why no evidential breath test was taken at the police station?  If she refused to do one, I wonder if that may explain the decision of the insurer.

TheSpectator

TELLIT01 said:

Does the OP know why no evidential breath test was taken at the police station?  If she refused to do one, I wonder if that may explain the decision of the insurer.

Good point, the normal reasons for refusal or 'can't manage it' are to buy some time for the affect to diminish. Although these usually result in a failure to provide charge.

MikeJXE

No test at the station usually men’s subject taken straight to hospital 

quasar11

so this is what we recieved back from hastings direct, they are adamant they will not move from their decision so it looks like a complaint will be made and then go through the FOS

TELLIT01

So presumably they are rejecting the claim based on the first bullet point of 'found to be over the prescribed limit'.  The insurer can certainly argue that the driver fits that category as they don't define the type of test required. 

Does the OP have any idea what the figure was at the roadside?

oldernonethewiser

The first example on the post by DullGreyGuy earlier in this thread would not give you much hope of a positive outcome from the ombudsman.

TheSpectator

oldernonethewiser said:

The first example on the post by DullGreyGuy earlier in this thread would not give you much hope of a positive outcome from the ombudsman.

Hopefully that's the case. Unless a borderline figure at roadside test then there should be no get of jail card (for insurance purposes, appreciate to criminal charges will happen) for a blood test probably taken some time later.