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

Woodstok2000

flaneurs_lobster said:

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?

Good point - I've no idea, but I imagine it would be similar? So other than the point of principle regarding fault, there's maybe very little benefit in challenging this if you'll end up in the same situation regardless....

MyRealNameToo

Woodstok2000 said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

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?

Good point - I've no idea, but I imagine it would be similar? So other than the point of principle regarding fault, there's maybe very little benefit in challenging this if you'll end up in the same situation regardless....

The main reason is for uninsured losses, there can be a notable difference between getting 50% or 100% of your personal injuries paid out plus excess, loss of earnings and any other heads of claim. 

Most insurers will increase premiums more for a fault claim than a non-fault claim but with these matters it always depends on how good a risk you are otherwise,  if you are otherwise a good risk even a fault claim may not make too much difference to premiums but if you are a bad risk even before this then the impact will be compounded. 

dealwatchers

Thank you all for your responses — I really appreciate the time taken to reply. While I may not be able to respond to every individual point, I’ll try to cover as much as I can here.

Firstly, I may not have phrased my original post clearly. My concern isn’t primarily about financial loss, as the insurer has covered the repairs and, for now, I’m not majorly out of pocket (excess only). My main issue is the principle of the matter. Based on the evidence and the facts of the incident (including a key witness), a 50/50 outcome simply doesn’t reflect what happened. That’s why I want to push back — not for a payout, but to protect the record and make sure liability is correctly allocated.

To clarify a smaller point raised: someone mentioned “we” versus “I” — totally fair. I’m asking on behalf of my wife, and we’re managing the claim together, so I’ve used “we” interchangeably, but I’m the one handling the admin side on this forum.

As for the comment: “I’m trying to picture just how much rear swing we're talking about…” — my wife had already stopped to give way to the HGV, which was turning right out of a yard. As the HGV turned, the driver misjudged the swing of their rear and it struck the rear driver side of our car. He had full visibility, time, and space to stop, or even ask her to reverse if he needed more clearance. He did neither — he chose to continue and caused the impact.

Someone also mentioned that insurers will sometimes agree to 50/50 if it's cheaper than fighting it — that’s exactly the position Admiral (and their legal team Admiral Law) have taken. They’re telling us they won’t pursue it further unless we instruct a solicitor privately. (this is where I am currently stuck as I need to decide to pursue this further or not)

And yes, to confirm another point someone raised — my goal here is to get the 50/50 liability decision overturned and recorded correctly as non-fault. It’s about avoiding a blemish on my wife’s record, keeping her no-claims discount intact, and ensuring we don’t face inflated premiums in future. If she was at fault, I would not keep at this unless I strongly did not think we would win in court unless I legally am missing something which would ultimately end up in a 50/50 decision.

I’m not legally or technically trained, so I really appreciate the advice in plain English. Thanks again to everyone who’s contributed so far — it's helping us think through our next steps.

Mildly_Miffed

dealwatchers said:

As for the comment: “I’m trying to picture just how much rear swing we're talking about…” — my wife had already stopped to give way to the HGV, which was turning right out of a yard. As the HGV turned, the driver misjudged the swing of their rear and it struck the rear driver side of our car. He had full visibility, time, and space to stop, or even ask her to reverse if he needed more clearance. He did neither — he chose to continue and caused the impact.

Equally, your wife would have had time to reverse.

But she must have stopped very, VERY close to the likely path of the truck - and quite likely in a position where she was simply invisible to the driver.

Without any dashcam or other video, I'm not surprised it's going 50/50. What the driver said at the time is not legally binding on the two insurers.

MyRealNameToo

dealwatchers said:
And yes, to confirm another point someone raised — my goal here is to get the 50/50 liability decision overturned and recorded correctly as non-fault. It’s about avoiding a blemish on my wife’s record, keeping her no-claims discount intact, and ensuring we don’t face inflated premiums in future. If she was at fault, I would not keep at this unless I strongly did not think we would win in court unless I legally am missing something which would ultimately end up in a 50/50 decision.

I’m not legally or technically trained, so I really appreciate the advice in plain English. Thanks again to everyone who’s contributed so far — it's helping us think through our next steps.

Do you know how much the damages came to? 

Many cases end up in small track which mean legal fees cannot be recovered. If the damage is minor it can be that the cost of bringing a case will cost more than the amount they can possibly recover. There is no point paying £2,000 to try and get £1,000 back as even if you succeed you are £1,000 down from where you were before and there is a risk you end up getting nothing back meaning your down an extra £2k. 

There are also no slam dunks when it comes to court, there is always an element of a roll of the dice so even if the you will get back more than it will cost you to try you have to consider the prospect of success maybe the witness decides on the day they dont want to spend a day in court and the judge has a dim view of women drivers and therefore assumes she caused the accident. 

Some insurers are keener on going to court than others but most will only do it when the numbers stack up and a negotiated settlement without costs is better in many cases where there arent significant injuries. 

dealwatchers

Mildly_Miffed said:

dealwatchers said:

As for the comment: “I’m trying to picture just how much rear swing we're talking about…” — my wife had already stopped to give way to the HGV, which was turning right out of a yard. As the HGV turned, the driver misjudged the swing of their rear and it struck the rear driver side of our car. He had full visibility, time, and space to stop, or even ask her to reverse if he needed more clearance. He did neither — he chose to continue and caused the impact.

Equally, your wife would have had time to reverse.

But she must have stopped very, VERY close to the likely path of the truck - and quite likely in a position where she was simply invisible to the driver.

Without any dashcam or other video, I'm not surprised it's going 50/50. What the driver said at the time is not legally binding on the two insurers.

Thanks for your comment — I do see your perspective.

The HGV was manoeuvring after being given way. At that point, he could have signalled to my wife to continue past if he knew he didn’t have the clearance to complete the turn safely. Instead, he proceeded and made the situation worse.

I’m not relying on his comments at the scene for legal weight, but they do give context for why we’re not accepting 50/50 without question.

Appreciate all views — just hoping for support that balances practicality with fairness.

dealwatchers

MyRealNameToo said:

dealwatchers said:
And yes, to confirm another point someone raised — my goal here is to get the 50/50 liability decision overturned and recorded correctly as non-fault. It’s about avoiding a blemish on my wife’s record, keeping her no-claims discount intact, and ensuring we don’t face inflated premiums in future. If she was at fault, I would not keep at this unless I strongly did not think we would win in court unless I legally am missing something which would ultimately end up in a 50/50 decision.

I’m not legally or technically trained, so I really appreciate the advice in plain English. Thanks again to everyone who’s contributed so far — it's helping us think through our next steps.

Do you know how much the damages came to? 

Many cases end up in small track which mean legal fees cannot be recovered. If the damage is minor it can be that the cost of bringing a case will cost more than the amount they can possibly recover. There is no point paying £2,000 to try and get £1,000 back as even if you succeed you are £1,000 down from where you were before and there is a risk you end up getting nothing back meaning your down an extra £2k. 

There are also no slam dunks when it comes to court, there is always an element of a roll of the dice so even if the you will get back more than it will cost you to try you have to consider the prospect of success maybe the witness decides on the day they dont want to spend a day in court and the judge has a dim view of women drivers and therefore assumes she caused the accident. 

Some insurers are keener on going to court than others but most will only do it when the numbers stack up and a negotiated settlement without costs is better in many cases where there arent significant injuries. 

I have had a look and cannot find how much the damages have come to. Only my excess which is £675. My frustration is less about chasing money and more about the principle and record — having a 50/50 liability on file when the facts suggest otherwise, especially when we were stationary and the HGV misjudged the space after being given way, along with a witness surprises me but I totally get that insurers do not take a risk when fighting for you. 

I believe your latter paragraph suggests where I am heading.

Woodstok2000

You mention retaining your no claims discount - was it protected? Even if unprotected, you'll only lose 2 years due to a single claim. I appreciate the unfairness in this scenario, but it's really worth considering all the potential hassle for a point of principle and minimal financial impact.   

HedgehogRulez

Sounds like a great hill to die on 

user1977

How much time and money do you wish to spend pursuing this principle?