Admiral Law Refusing to Pursue My Non-Fault Claim – What Can I Do?

dealwatchers

Hi all,

Nice to meet you all virtually. This is my first post so please be kind.

Looking for advice on what to do next regarding my insurance claim. 

Context

My wife was in a non-fault accident: she turned left out of a garden centre and came to a complete stop to let an HGV exit a yard. The HGV then swung wide and hit the back right of her car. She was stationary at the time. A witness confirmed this, and the HGV driver admitted fault at the scene (later denied, of course).

Admiral passed the case to Admiral Law, who are now saying it’s 50/50 liability because “both vehicles were exiting side roads,” despite my wife being stationary. They refuse to take it to court and say we would have to cover legal costs ourselves if we lose — even though we have legal cover. We’ve submitted a detailed statement, a diagram, and formally rejected the offer, but they won’t budge. I’ve raised a formal complaint.

What makes this worse is that Admiral have mishandled this case more than once. They previously settled at 50/50 last year, claiming the witness hadn’t responded — only for it later to become clear that Admiral were repeatedly chasing the third-party driver, not the witness. The case had to be reopened, and Admiral have compensated me twice (as it happened again but other issues) for poor handling and lack of communication. Even now, it feels like they’re trying to close the file rather than properly defend the claim.

I really don’t want to pay for private legal support when this is exactly what I pay insurance and legal cover for.

Questions:

1. Can I escalate this (e.g. Financial Ombudsman)?

2. Has anyone challenged their insurer’s legal team and won?

3. Can a new solicitor use my existing legal cover?

4. What are my actual risks if I push this?

Appreciate any advice — I don’t want to let this slide when we’ve clearly done nothing wrong.

Thanks in advance and happy to provide more details,

Peter

(PS. The 3rd party vehicle did not have valid MOT but unsure this makes any difference at the time)

flaneurs_lobster

Can you quantify your losses for being found 50/50 liable for the accident as opposed to being not at fault?

Presumably your vehicle's repairs have been covered? Would you be looking to recover an excess charge?

dealwatchers

Thank you for your quick response. At the moment, I’m waiting for my wife to provide the login details for the portal so I can access the full breakdown of any associated losses. (I will hopefully get that across soon but suspect its at least a few thousand)

In the meantime, I can confirm that the vehicle repairs have been covered and I’m not currently out of pocket beyond what was handled through the insurance. That said, my concern is less about immediate financial loss and more about the principle of the decision, ensuring no fault is wrongly recorded, and that my no claims bonus remains protected.

facade

If it is 50/50 liability, then you should only be down 50% of your excess (your own insurer pays 50% of your loss, less 50% of your excess).

The third party pay 50% of your loss, effectively 50% of your repair costs.(no excess)

Are you saying that the third party insurer won't pay up and your legal cover refuse to chase them?

You can't pursue the third party for the 50% of your excess that your own insurer will charge.

flaneurs_lobster

OP can answer for themselves but looks like they want the 50/50 finding changed to no fault.

Would that unlock the OP's motor legal cover?

Not sure if OP's insurer will care either way - claim has been settled and repairs paid for.

OP has mentioned the fateful "point of principle" and, possibly more quantifiable, the loss of their no-claims bonus.

Car_54

OP, are you the policyholder, or is it your wife?

Either way, there is no "we" in dispute with the insurers and/or lawyers.

facade

I don't understand how the OP can have quantifiable losses of "at least a few thousand" over a 50/50 payout.

There is a clause in the microprint of every car insurance policy along the lines of "We can cut any deal that we like with the third party if it is in our interests to do so", and the legal protection will have one about "No flogging a dead horse/we only fight if there is a good chance of winning"

Basically, if it is cheaper for the insurer to agree 50/50 terms with the third party rather than spend more time and money trying to get better than any likely return would yield, then they can & will settle for that.

The only recourse is to follow the complaints procedure, and then if there is no satisfactory resolution to escalate to the FOS.

Mildly_Miffed

I'm trying to picture just how much rear-swing we're talking about for the car to be hit unless it stopped VERY VERY CLOSE to the truck that was well established in emerging...

Woodstok2000

facade said:

I don't understand how the OP can have quantifiable losses of "at least a few thousand" over a 50/50 payout.

Reading between the lines, I think they mean the total cost woul be a few thousand,but no losses beyond the excess as the claim was settled.

Assuming this is the only claim this year, it will only take 2 years off the NCB. If OP has protected NCB this claim wont impact it at all. Of course your premium may still go through thr roof because of the claim though....

MyRealNameToo

dealwatchers said:

Questions:

1. Can I escalate this (e.g. Financial Ombudsman)?

2. Has anyone challenged their insurer’s legal team and won?

3. Can a new solicitor use my existing legal cover?

4. What are my actual risks if I push this?

1) Yes, once you have complained to the insurer first and gotten their final response

2) I challenged and lost but it was a different matter to that of liability

3) Pretty much no one else will agree to the terms of your policy, the lawyers get paid peanuts compared to normal work but it works when you are getting tens of thousands of cases a year and your a firm setup to deal with high volume low complexity cases

4) The increase in costs if you dont achieve a better result than 50/50. How much that could be depends if either side are claiming injury and the total value of the case

flaneurs_lobster

Woodstok2000 said:

facade said:

I don't understand how the OP can have quantifiable losses of "at least a few thousand" over a 50/50 payout.

 Of course your premium may still go through thr roof because of the claim though....

Is the increase in premium likely to be significantly different if the accident was reassessed as no-fault as opposed to 50/50?