Convicted Driver Insurance Quotes

Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy

#1
My son fell foul of Admiral's terms and conditions relating to accidents whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.

Anyone else in the same position with Admiral or other companies.

Section 5 of the Admiral policy contains the following :-

"If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 5 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink or drugs, or was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, no cover under the policy will be provided and instead, our liability will be restricted to meeting our obligations as required by the Road Traffic Act. In those circumstances, we reserve the right to 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."

Firstly I suggest anyone avoids Admiral unless you are 100% certain that no drivers on the policy will never D&D

By agreeing to these terms it appears you are accepting unlimited liability. If they succeed with their claim in court you could be financially wiped out.

My son has no assets but they want him to explain how he is going to pay them back.

I have not seen this in my new LV= policy or previous Esure policy.

I doubt whether it is enforceable and suspect they are just fishing for people to top up their coffers.

As an aside it has affected the cost of my new policy as the "accident/claim" is visible to my new insurer and costing me an extra £850.

As the policy holder my son's misdemeanour's are affecting me directly.

Admiral have not been able to explain if a claim has been settled against my policy, or if they are out of pocket through complying with the Road Traffic Act.
 

YouTeeAitch

Well-known member
#2
Very interested to read this as I think I'm in the same situation.

My whole affair involved me hitting a house whilst drunk back in May 2010. I was told not long after by Admiral that as I was convicted of DD, I'd be liable to pay the bill. At the time they said this was going to be between £20,000 and £100,000!!!!!

That was May last year, and I've not heard a thing from them in months and months. No idea what's going on, but no chance am I going to chase them or anything!

So I'm kind of living with this cloud hanging over me, but totally in the dark. Have they forgotten about it?!? Do I have a leg to stand on when I say I'm not paying?!
 
#3
Very interested to read this as I think I'm in the same situation.

My whole affair involved me hitting a house whilst drunk back in May 2010. I was told not long after by Admiral that as I was convicted of DD, I'd be liable to pay the bill. At the time they said this was going to be between £20,000 and £100,000!!!!!

That was May last year, and I've not heard a thing from them in months and months. No idea what's going on, but no chance am I going to chase them or anything!

So I'm kind of living with this cloud hanging over me, but totally in the dark. Have they forgotten about it?!? Do I have a leg to stand on when I say I'm not paying?!
Surprised by this time that they haven't sent you a letter with the amount they want off you!

However they might still be embroiled in a long winded dispute over the final figure.

I can't yet see how they can enforce these terms and conditions which basically means you accept unlimited liability.

Have you signed the indemnity form?

My advice is don't contact them and string it out.

They have given my son a figure and asked how is plans to pay.
I have asked for ALL the details relating to the case and the stuff they have sent me is unacceptable. They cite the Data Protection Act for not supplying the names, addresses and medical reports of the claimants.
So they want my son to pay out to some anonymous people?

They have knocked 10% as a special offer and asked him to send his payslips in and explain his outgoings. Nice try but no chance!

My son has no assets so if they want to pursue him it will be a pointless.
I will see how far they take it. All the way to Court if necessary.
 

YouTeeAitch

Well-known member
#4
Indeed very odd that they haven't got in touch yet, no doubt they will one day!

So they're asking for payslips etc?! That's not good news....I own my house, so I assume that means they could in theory get me to sell my house to pay them!? Not keen on that!!!!


Surprised by this time that they haven't sent you a letter with the amount they want off you!

However they might still be embroiled in a long winded dispute over the final figure.

I can't yet see how they can enforce these terms and conditions which basically means you accept unlimited liability.

Have you signed the indemnity form?

My advice is don't contact them and string it out.

They have given my son a figure and asked how is plans to pay.
I have asked for ALL the details relating to the case and the stuff they have sent me is unacceptable. They cite the Data Protection Act for not supplying the names, addresses and medical reports of the claimants.
So they want my son to pay out to some anonymous people?

They have knocked 10% as a special offer and asked him to send his payslips in and explain his outgoings. Nice try but no chance!

My son has no assets so if they want to pursue him it will be a pointless.
I will see how far they take it. All the way to Court if necessary.
 
#5
I am interested to hear from anyone in a similar situation where the Admiral Group of insurers which includes Admiral, Bell, Diamond and Elephant are pursuing you for the repayment of third party costs.
Specifically under their Drink and Drugs exclusion in their policy (section 5?)

You may also see Admiral Group under the name of EUI limited.

I am not a legal expert, just a concerned parent and a person who dislikes injustice.

I suggest people read this http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1657.html

EUI lost the case and had to pay up for £200k of damage to a property that one of their policyholders did in a suicide attempt. EUI unsuccessfully tried to avoid their obligations under the Road Traffic Act. what did arise in this case was reference to Ruiz Bernaldez http://www.mibclaim.co.uk/resources...l-proceedings-ruiz-bernldez-case-c12994-1996/ Under Spanish national law the insurer can avoid the policy if the driver is intoxicated. The Spanish Court referred questions to the European Court where I believe (with my laymans lack of legal knowledge) the direction was that Bernaldez insurer had to pay the TP costs but they had the right to pursue Bernaldez for repayment. The European part of it relates to Directives that standardise the approach in every EU country.

I believe this is the case that has made EUI (Admiral Group) think they can get away with their Drink and Drug Exclusion.

I have yet to find a case that has gone to court in the UK where Admiral have succeeded. AFAIK under UK law if you have a valid certificate of insurance the insurer has to pay for third party damage and injury but under the RTA, Section 148 they cannot include terms that avoid the policy based on certain criteria (subsection 2) including the physical and mental state of the driver.

As far as I have seen so far only the Admiral Group have this specific term and a quick check of other major insurers policy documents shows that no one else does it. I suspect because Admiral have a more aggressive business model and believe they can intimidate people into paying. I can only speculate that other insurers don't do it because it is not supported under UK Law.

I may have got this partially or completely wrong so more than happy to be corrected. In fact I am seeking clarity from anyone about whether Admiral's Drink and Drugs terms are enforceable under UK law and whether a UK court will take the Bernaldez case into consideration when making a judgment.

My advice is to call the FSA and complain about the unfair term in the contract - It is a non-negotiated contract that puts the consumer at a disadvantage - you are taking on unlimited liability. I think the highest motor insurance claim is £20m.

Also consider complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm if you believe you have a valid complaint against your insurer.

Please PM me. I am happy to share what I know and especially interested in any cases that have actually made it to court or are on the process of going to court.
 

AndyCabs

Well-known member
#6
Hi, I came across this article on the BBC News website, March 2012, concerning Zurich.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17489887

The last paragraph is interesting -
The Road Traffic Act states insurers still have to pay out for third party claims, even if an insurer tried to exclude you from cover on the grounds of that you were under the influence of drink or drugs.
 
#7
Thanks for this Andy. Much appreciated.

It confirms my understanding that the insurer cannot avoid paying the TP costs.
What the BBC article is not clear on is whether they (the insurer) think they can subsequently recover the costs through the courts.
It doesn't mention that in the article so I assume they don't pursue the driver. I cannot find the Admiral exclusion in the policies of other insurers.
 
#8
I have yet to find a case that has gone to court in the UK where Admiral have succeeded. AFAIK under UK law if you have a valid certificate of insurance the insurer has to pay for third party damage and injury but under the RTA, Section 148 they cannot include terms that avoid the policy based on certain criteria (subsection 2) including the physical and mental state of the driver.
I have changed my mind on this and I think I got it wrong. Section 148 subsection (4) says they can recover costs under certain conditions in subsection (2). I don't now believe that being under the influence applies to physical and mental state. I believe this relates to a change in physical or mental condition since the certificate was issued - e.g. gone blind or lost a limb. Which brings me back to them using the Ruiz Bernaldez case and having no right under UK law to recover costs.

Anyone know a legal expert on the RTA and associated EU directives, or got any views? I really want to confirm whether my thoughts on this are correct?
 
#10
Hi Depressed Dad,

I'm new to these forums. Is there a function to private message on the forums?! I can't seem to find the option. I am in a similar situation to your son and I am meeting a solicitor on Friday, I think it's best we clash heads and thrash out any ideas, legal loopholes that may exist. Let me know.

Cheers

T
 
#11
I have pretty much given up hope of my son not having to be financially ruined by Admiral's practice of pursuing people to recover the costs.
I suspect it will end up with court proceedings. I am just waiting for a final decision on a complaint due to be looked at by the Ombudsman.

Admiral made several mistakes, unable to locate voice recordings, mistakes adding up figures correctly, unable to send legible photo of damage, sending letters to pursue me not my son, leaving the other drivers name and address in correspondence, they didn't know the other car had already been written off twice before.

The incompetence doesn't usually matter when it is all paid out under the policy but damned annoying when they want my son to pay it all. A minor collision with a £1500 heap has led to a settlement of £24k.

No one gets in a car expecting to have an accident. Having a drink is going to increase the chance of having an accident, but so is using your phone, speeding, driving when ill and just bad driving.

It is just part of Admirals aggressive business model to maximise profits. I am convinced anything they get is an added bonus as they would be stupid not to factor the risk into their insurance premiums rather than rely on recovery.

Just to be clear the Admiral Group includes Admiral, Bell, Elephant and Diamond. AFAIK they all include the same drink and drugs terms so unless you and your names drivers are tee-total I would avoid them even if they are the cheapest.
 
#12
I have pretty much given up hope of my son not having to be financially ruined by Admiral's practice of pursuing people to recover the costs.
I suspect it will end up with court proceedings. I am just waiting for a final decision on a complaint due to be looked at by the Ombudsman.

Admiral made several mistakes, unable to locate voice recordings, mistakes adding up figures correctly, unable to send legible photo of damage, sending letters to pursue me not my son, leaving the other drivers name and address in correspondence, they didn't know the other car had already been written off twice before.

The incompetence doesn't usually matter when it is all paid out under the policy but damned annoying when they want my son to pay it all. A minor collision with a £1500 heap has led to a settlement of £24k.

No one gets in a car expecting to have an accident. Having a drink is going to increase the chance of having an accident, but so is using your phone, speeding, driving when ill and just bad driving.

It is just part of Admirals aggressive business model to maximise profits. I am convinced anything they get is an added bonus as they would be stupid not to factor the risk into their insurance premiums rather than rely on recovery.

Just to be clear the Admiral Group includes Admiral, Bell, Elephant and Diamond. AFAIK they all include the same drink and drugs terms so unless you and your names drivers are tee-total I would avoid them even if they are the cheapest.
This is very sad news to hear. Did you consult a solicitor DD? You said 24k was the settlement fee, can I ask what the original bill was? They want 8k from me, I've got a meeting with a civil defence lawyer on Friday. All this because I picked Admiral. They are a truly disgusting organisation. Can I ask if your son signed the indemnity form? Sorry for all the questions.
 
#13
Yes, he signed the indemnity form, based on on a phone call to a legal advisor. They claim they save you more money and act on your behalf. We haven't sought any further legal advice yet but if we do it needs to be someone who knows contract law and the Road Traffic Act. No final figure has been agreed with Admiral yet. £24k is the amount they have paid out.
 
#14
My son fell foul of Admiral's terms and conditions relating to accidents whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.

Anyone else in the same position with Admiral or other companies.

Section 5 of the Admiral policy contains the following :-

"If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 5 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink or drugs, or was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, no cover under the policy will be provided and instead, our liability will be restricted to meeting our obligations as required by the Road Traffic Act. In those circumstances, we reserve the right to 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."

Firstly I suggest anyone avoids Admiral unless you are 100% certain that no drivers on the policy will never D&D

By agreeing to these terms it appears you are accepting unlimited liability. If they succeed with their claim in court you could be financially wiped out.

My son has no assets but they want him to explain how he is going to pay them back.

I have not seen this in my new LV= policy or previous Esure policy.

I doubt whether it is enforceable and suspect they are just fishing for people to top up their coffers.

As an aside it has affected the cost of my new policy as the "accident/claim" is visible to my new insurer and costing me an extra £850.

As the policy holder my son's misdemeanour's are affecting me directly.

Admiral have not been able to explain if a claim has been settled against my policy, or if they are out of pocket through complying with the Road Traffic Act.

I am in a similar situation and would very much like to talk to you.
 
#16
Hopeless, is it you that was D&D or someone else on your policy?
Myself.

I have yet to be convicted for an alcohol related offence, but I am expecting to be once I return to the station. I have had my blood independently analysed which showed a reading of less than 80 so I am not sure as of yet to what the outcome will be; I am sure that there will be issues with the insurance company either way.
 
#17
Wait to see if you are convicted of D&D first. Check the terms of your policy. The Admiral/Bell/Diamond/Elephant one says they only pursue you if you are convicted.

Did you have an accident? If so what damage was caused? Are there likely to be any personal injury claims? Have you reported the accident to you insurer?
 
#18
ok guys, unfortunately i find myself asking for advice on this thread. I wanted to find out how your situations with admiral have developed. im in a similar position with them wanting to recover costs from me. im dreading the indemnity letter through the post but know its coming, they have already told me they are seeking costs.

any advice would be greatly appreciated. Even if its just knowing that you have paid or made arrangements to pay. and how much they are willing to accept as payments.

have you come across a story of anyone actually being taking to court?

many thanks

I'm hoping it worked out ok for you guys
 
#19
You need to seek legal advice before you sign the indemnity.

The FSA consider the terms to be fair. The FOS are looking into my complaint but not hopeful of success.

I am not aware of anyone that has been to court, probably because of the extra costs involved. Most people seem to make an arrangement to pay before getting to court.

You need to ask Admiral for all of the details relating to the settlement of the claim and decide if they truly have acted in your best interest, or gone down the path of least resistance and not challenged the costs being claimed. They are pretty inept in my experience. They just accept the other parties claims without doing proper checks and challenges.

After going through this I recommend that in future you read the terms and conditions from cover to cover and make sure you understand them and accept them. Never choose a product on price alone. There are much better companies with better products out there.

AVOID the PIRATES with their jolly little adverts.
 
#20
Many thanks for your response, it is greatly appreciated. I guess I'll just have to deal with the consequences. Definitely a case of learning from the experience and not making the same mistake again.

One last thing I could do with some clarification on. I'm the person involved in the accident and dd charge.. From your research will they only peruse me? I wouldn't want them to persue my mother who is the policy holder.

I don't have many assists don't mind paying it off over the long.... Long... Term but my mother has a home in her name and I wouldn't want my mistake to cause her any problems.
 
Buy CDT Test
Top