Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy

Convicted Driver Insurance
firemansam007 said:
Hi Price,

I have a question related to the below. Is it 6 years from the data of conviction or accident. I heard some one saying it's 6 years from last correspondence from the insurer.

Please can you advise. Thanks. Sam.

The third party is nothing to do with you. They will not be ‘taking control of the claim’ because it is the responsibility of the insurance company to settle the claim under their duty to do this. It is then up to the insurance company to decide how to. Try to recoup what they have paid out.​
They have 6 years in which to file a claim with the County Court of they have no success in persuading you to pay.​
Even if that were to happen, and they won, providing the claim was paid within 28 days then there would be no CCJ recorded against you​
Click to expand...
The 6 year period is from when they first became aware of their loss, so it would be the accident (to within a day or two) not the date of conviction which could have been months later.
 
If anyone thinks the T&Cs are not clear and you haven’t ‘signed up to them’ then consider raising a case with the FOS.

I stated before that it’s crazy that you are expected to understand the relevant parts of the RTA.

The FOS believe that Admirals T&Cs are fine but maybe they won’t agree with the T&Cs of other insurers.

You can search their decisions by insurer and other criteria so worth seeing if any historic cases help you decide if it’s worth raising your own case.
 
Adding this in for completeness because this thread is a Sticky.

Depressed Dad said:
I found this recently - Admiral FOS case
Worth a read for anyone being pursued. A motor insurance legal expert might find something that helps.

Note that FOS investigators and the Ombudsman have always sided with the insurers Drink and Drugs T&Cs. I had a partial success to stop them recording the claim against my insurance record - because there was no claim against the policy.

It mentions Admiral's role as either the MIB Section 75 or RTA insurer. Another complexity I don't fully understand.




Seems that Admiral settle third party claims as though it was done under the policy. They know it will come to them eventually if the third party obtains a CCJ so better to get in early to try to mitigate the losses. I don't think it makes much difference if you sign the form or not other than a formal agreement for them to act for you and a promise to to pay up.

Again I could be totally wrong. If I ever win Euromillions I'll sponsor a case through the courts with the best legal team I can assemble.
Click to expand...

I believe the FOS case mentioned above has led to a change in the Admiral policy wording for the Drink and Drugs exclusion cause.

It now reads (since September 2020):

No cover under the policy will be given and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Law and we will cancel your policy.
Click to expand...

Admiral are now taking a different approach which relies on additional signed contractual agreements or the correct path of needing an unsatisfied CCJ before they are obliged to settle.

The Third Party Insurer could take you to court themselves for the claim and Admiral need not be involved if you reach settlement directly with the TP insurer. If you don't settle with the TP insurer then Admiral are obliged to settle the unsatisfied CCJ. This would then lead to Admiral seeking payment for their outlay. All a bit convoluted and extra choices to be made.
 
Here is another case from the FOS to consider. It is important because it also mentions legal costs fro the insurance company (who have said there is no cover) as regards settling the third party costs.
I think it worthy of consideration that if there is a damage only claim, it can be worth settling direct with the third party. There is no obligation to go through insurance for an acccident, and as they say there is no cover provided, they could not object to a direct settlement, thereby avoiding insurance legal costs....

 
price1367 said:
Here is another case from the FOS to consider. It is important because it also mentions legal costs fro the insurance company (who have said there is no cover) as regards settling the third party costs.
I think it worthy of consideration that if there is a damage only claim, it can be worth settling direct with the third party. There is no obligation to go through insurance for an acccident, and as they say there is no cover provided, they could not object to a direct settlement, thereby avoiding insurance legal costs....

Click to expand...
So in my case it could possibly be beneficial to contact the TP insurers myself?
 
Alldaybreakfastin said:
So in my case it could possibly be beneficial to contact the TP insurers myself?
Click to expand...
Yes, or the car owner direct. But I doubt the owner would want a small payment each month, they would want the vehicle repairing and paid for in one go. It depends if you would be in a position to offer that?
 
price1367 said:
Yes, or the car owner direct. But I doubt the owner would want a small payment each month, they would want the vehicle repairing and paid for in one go. It depends if you would be in a position to offer that?
Click to expand...
Ah ok, I’ve just seen on here previously to not contact the TP at all and to ignore if they send you anything.

I can’t see him going for that, to be honest. But I could ring his insurers and see where the car is up to re repair and cost estimate?
 
Alldaybreakfastin said:
Ah ok, I’ve just seen on here previously to not contact the TP at all and to ignore if they send you anything.

I can’t see him going for that, to be honest. But I could ring his insurers and see where the car is up to re repair and cost estimate?
Click to expand...
The bit about ignoring TP insurers relates to where there is insurance, and you forward everything to your insurers to deal with. In this case, you do not have an insurer because they have declined to cover the accident due to drink driving.
You can approach the TP insurers, but don’t dismiss contacting the owner direct. I appreciate that he will not welcome you with open arms, but if you are in a position to settle with him, he may prefer to get it done quicker with you than being drawn out through insurance.
Who knows, he might be happy to take cash (and sign a confirmation that the claim is settled in full) and then go to a friend who is a mechanic and get the repair done cheaper..........
 
price1367 said:
The bit about ignoring TP insurers relates to where there is insurance, and you forward everything to your insurers to deal with. In this case, you do not have an insurer because they have declined to cover the accident due to drink driving.
You can approach the TP insurers, but don’t dismiss contacting the owner direct. I appreciate that he will not welcome you with open arms, but if you are in a position to settle with him, he may prefer to get it done quicker with you than being drawn out through insurance.
Who knows, he might be happy to take cash (and sign a confirmation that the claim is settled in full) and then go to a friend who is a mechanic and get the repair done cheaper..........
Click to expand...
Possibly, but I’d expect it has already been repaired or some costs incurred on insurance side as it was collected by, I’m guessing his insurance the day after the accident.

Probably should have contacted him sooner but he really didn’t seem like he’d be up for doing anything below the books.
 
It isn’t ‘below the books’. You are not offering payment to ‘forget the claim’.
He is out of pocket, you can offer to meet those costs. I agree that there would be recovery costs that he is not aware of and you would have to speak to the insurance company about that.
If you want to keep emotions out of it then yes, go to the insurance company. They will not be personally involved and as they will be aware that you were uninsured they may be happy to discuss payment from you direct to them.
There is never a legal requirement to use your insurance company (and don't forget, in this case you do not have an insurance company ((sorry to be rubbing that in)) ) but obviously for large damage and certainly personal injury it would make complete sense to use it.
 
price1367 said:
It isn’t ‘below the books’. You are not offering payment to ‘forget the claim’.
He is out of pocket, you can offer to meet those costs. I agree that there would be recovery costs that he is not aware of and you would have to speak to the insurance company about that.
If you want to keep emotions out of it then yes, go to the insurance company. They will not be personally involved and as they will be aware that you were uninsured they may be happy to discuss payment from you direct to them.
There is never a legal requirement to use your insurance company (and don't forget, in this case you do not have an insurance company ((sorry to be rubbing that in)) ) but obviously for large damage and certainly personal injury it would make complete sense to use it.
Click to expand...
The thought of contacting him makes me feel sick but maybe I can grow a pair. Would you recommend talking to him or them first?

Definitely no personal injury. I’ve showed you a photo of the damage but I’ll PM it again, I don’t know how minor it is but the police said it was.
 
I recollect reading about a bus crash in New York a few years ago, where people were seen AFTER the crash running to get on it, so they could claim for whiplash........ never presume no injuries will be CLAIMED for.
 
price1367 said:
I recollect reading about a bus crash in New York a few years ago, where people were seen AFTER the crash running to get on it, so they could claim for whiplash........ never presume no injuries will be CLAIMED for.
Click to expand...
Well, the prosecutor in court read out the witness/owner heard the crash from inside his house, so hopefully not!
 
Alldaybreakfastin said:
Possibly, but I’d expect it has already been repaired or some costs incurred on insurance side as it was collected by, I’m guessing his insurance the day after the accident.

Probably should have contacted him sooner but he really didn’t seem like he’d be up for doing anything below the books.
Click to expand...
Could it be that if Admiral have settled the claim, and you have not given consent for them to settle or act for you, and then you subsequently offer to settle directly as Admiral said you were not covered, could this offer a way to reduce your liability?

Don't know, just a left field idea... Maybe any costs associated with any ambulance chasers they instructed and/or Admiral themselves in dealing with the claim!
 
BigTom said:
Could it be that if Admiral have settled the claim, and you have not given consent for them to settle or act for you, and then you subsequently offer to settle directly as Admiral said you were not covered, could this offer a way to reduce your liability?

Don't know, just a left field idea... Maybe any costs associated with any ambulance chasers they instructed and/or Admiral themselves in dealing with the claim!
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no idea what most of you message means, sorry - I think my slots are full. I don’t think they’ve settled anything, they wouldn’t even give me an estimate.

What is an ambulance chaser?

Girl = confused 🤯
 
Alldaybreakfastin said:
I have absolutely no idea what most of you message means, sorry - I think my slots are full. I don’t think they’ve settled anything, they wouldn’t even give me an estimate.

What is an ambulance chaser?

Girl = confused 🤯
Click to expand...
Sorry, an ambulance chaser is a claims management company. Just thought if the claims management or Admiral themselves have incurred costs, if you were going to settle directly how can they claim these costs back?

Something to consider is that you offering to get the car directly repaired yourself may fall on deaf ears. I'm sure Mr X's car was the best one of it's age and was worth more than the book price.... So he probably thinks "Why should I lose on on having the car put back to the condition it was in beforehand?"
 
BigTom said:
Sorry, an ambulance chaser is a claims management company. Just thought if the claims management or Admiral themselves have incurred costs, if you were going to settle directly how can they claim these costs back?

Something to consider is that you offering to get the car directly repaired yourself may fall on deaf ears. I'm sure Mr X's car was the best one of it's age and was worth more than the book price.... So he probably thinks "Why should I lose on on having the car put back to the condition it was in beforehand?"
Click to expand...
I see. I genuinely don’t know what to do, I don’t think he’d be interested in anything to do with me. I should have suggested sorting it ourselves at the time but I was like a rabbit in the headlights. Never had a bump before.

To be honest the car sort of was, pretty low-average mileage and was well kept.

Do you think if I contacted his insurers directly for the bill, I’d have chance to ask for breakdown and query it?
 
Alldaybreakfastin said:
I see. I genuinely don’t know what to do, I don’t think he’d be interested in anything to do with me. I should have suggested sorting it ourselves at the time but I was like a rabbit in the headlights. Never had a bump before.

To be honest the car sort of was, pretty low-average mileage and was well kept.

Do you think if I contacted his insurers directly for the bill, I’d have chance to ask for breakdown and query it?
Click to expand...
It may be out the frying pan into the fire with his insurance company. It might worth asking them to pass an offer to settle directly at a garage of his choice, but then again this may be opening up him saying anything else wrong with his car needs fixing also and/or him choosing a really expensive place.

I was subject to a no fault of my own accident myself a number of years ago, a woman drove out on an island and I hit the side of her car (luckily 2 witnesses stopped, or me hitting her would have most likely been seen as my fault!).

My insurer at the time was Direct Line, they took control and sent it to their own repairer. When it come back, the work was shoddy so I refused to accept it. They took it back again, and again it was really poor quality, orange peeled paint, paint overspray on the rubbers and tyres etc so I refused it again. This time Direct Line handed it over to her insurer and they did a good job. I doubt Direct Line were able to claim their costs back though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top