Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy

Convicted Driver Insurance
Then who prescribes the limit? If Admiral has written in the clause that your breath reading can't exceed ?? then fine, they can chase you for payment, but if you are under the DD limit for the country you live in, then legally you were still sober.

I know the police can charge you with dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention if you have zero or very little alcohol in your system.

SO do Admiral have a limit written into their policies?

Admiral's exclusion only mentions 'the prescribed limit'

This is 35 micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath.
The Standard prosecution limit is 40 micrograms.

Details are on this DD website Here

So if you blow in the range of 36 - 40 the police don't prosecute but Admiral will cancel your policy and pursue you for any third party claims they have settled.

I hope that's clear.
 
Admiral's exclusion only mentions 'the prescribed limit'

This is 35 micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath.
The Standard prosecution limit is 40 micrograms.

Details are on this DD website Here

So if you blow in the range of 36 - 40 the police don't prosecute but Admiral will cancel your policy and pursue you for any third party claims they have settled.

I hope that's clear.
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty certain there will be people on the site who have been prosecuted within the 36-40 range. It's is not the same as speeding.
 
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty certain there will be people on the site who have been prosecuted within the 36-40 range. It's is not the same as speeding.
I'm sure I've read the information on this website and understood what it says.

Is the information on this website wrong?

No doubt there will be cases where prosecution may happen under 40, as mentioned quite clearly on the link I provided.

Admiral exclusion is quite clear too. They cancel if blow 36 and above, i.e. over the prescribed limit, not on conviction.
 
Admiral's exclusion only mentions 'the prescribed limit'

This is 35 micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath.
The Standard prosecution limit is 40 micrograms.

Details are on this DD website Here

So if you blow in the range of 36 - 40 the police don't prosecute but Admiral will cancel your policy and pursue you for any third party claims they have settled.

I hope that's clear.
I think they do prosecute at 40, but won't at 36-39. Not trying to be pedantic!
 
I'm sure I've read the information on this website and understood what it says.

Is the information on this website wrong?

No doubt there will be cases where prosecution may happen under 40, as mentioned quite clearly on the link I provided.

Admiral exclusion is quite clear too. They cancel if blow 36 and above, i.e. over the prescribed limit, not on conviction.
So who tells them your breath reading? The police? You?
 
I have been corresponding with Admiral with them acting on my behalf, The eventually sent me pictures of the damage to one of vehicles involved in the accident. The vehicle had minor damage from the photos. The car was classed as total loss, Claim was approx £2900. They then adjusted this saying salvage was £200, I asked them how this was true, for any of us to even purchase the wheels and tyres second hand would be more than this. There was only minor damage to rear bumper. I asked them to query this valuation from 3rd party insurer.

Admiral response



We are satisfied that the costs paid are legally recoverable in court we are therefore unwilling to discuss quantum and further and will be looking to instruct our legal representatives to pursue the matter further.


They are still going to recover the cost from myself but I was not driving the vehicle and they cancelled my insurance with immediate effect, so I guess they should be recovering cost from driver and not myself.
 
I have been corresponding with Admiral with them acting on my behalf, The eventually sent me pictures of the damage to one of vehicles involved in the accident. The vehicle had minor damage from the photos. The car was classed as total loss, Claim was approx £2900. They then adjusted this saying salvage was £200, I asked them how this was true, for any of us to even purchase the wheels and tyres second hand would be more than this. There was only minor damage to rear bumper. I asked them to query this valuation from 3rd party insurer.

Admiral response



We are satisfied that the costs paid are legally recoverable in court we are therefore unwilling to discuss quantum and further and will be looking to instruct our legal representatives to pursue the matter further.


They are still going to recover the cost from myself but I was not driving the vehicle and they cancelled my insurance with immediate effect, so I guess they should be recovering cost from driver and not myself.

Did this accident happen recently?
What is the wording of the exclusion clause?
Did you sign the indemnity form?
Was anyone injured and is their car hire costs?

If you are the policyholder and it was a named driver and the policy was cancelled then they have to pursue the driver not you - unless perhaps, you have signed the indemnity form. Even then I don't know if they can make it stick. They were pulled up by the Ombudsman for not following the uninsured driver process.

Technically they should only get involved after the third party has taken you to court an unsatisfied County Court Judgment against you.
They tend to bypass this by getting the third party to sign a form to allow them to deal with the claim directly. Or by signing the indemnity you've agreed to let them act for you and I think it says you agree to settle the claim.
 
Did this accident happen recently?
What is the wording of the exclusion clause?
Did you sign the indemnity form?
Was anyone injured and is their car hire costs?

If you are the policyholder and it was a named driver and the policy was cancelled then they have to pursue the driver not you - unless perhaps, you have signed the indemnity form. Even then I don't know if they can make it stick. They were pulled up by the Ombudsman for not following the uninsured driver process.

Technically they should only get involved after the third party has taken you to court an unsatisfied County Court Judgment against you.
They tend to bypass this by getting the third party to sign a form to allow them to deal with the claim directly. Or by signing the indemnity you've agreed to let them act for you and I think it says you agree to settle the claim.
It happened 11 months ago now, there was damage to 2 vehicles but no harm to any person. £10k claim in total ,of which approx £2k is for car hire. I didn't sign indemnity form.
 
It happened 11 months ago now, there was damage to 2 vehicles but no harm to any person. £10k claim in total ,of which approx £2k is for car hire. I didn't sign indemnity form.
Not entirely sure why they are coming after you personally if you weren't driving.

Was the driver a named driver? If so, they should be pursuing them and should NOT have cancelled your policy IMO.

If the driver was not a named driver, then did they have other car insurance with another provider? If they did, then the 3rd party claim should be settled by that insurer and any damage to your vehicle should be settled by Admiral who should then pursue the driver.

Something seems a bit strange here.

It would be good if you could update us re the above.
 
It happened 11 months ago now, there was damage to 2 vehicles but no harm to any person. £10k claim in total ,of which approx £2k is for car hire. I didn't sign indemnity form.

Not entirely sure why they are coming after you personally if you weren't driving.

Was the driver a named driver? If so, they should be pursuing them and should NOT have cancelled your policy IMO.

If the driver was not a named driver, then did they have other car insurance with another provider? If they did, then the 3rd party claim should be settled by that insurer and any damage to your vehicle should be settled by Admiral who should then pursue the driver.

Something seems a bit strange here.

It would be good if you could update us re the above.
The Driver was a named driver on my policy.
 
Sorry this isn't related to the current coversation- hope it goes well for you TNMN of course- but I must ask. Everywhere I see people suggesting talking to CAB about the indemnity letter, but what is the specific route people are taking to talk to the right advisors? Last I tried they told me they only deal with debt and housing. Obviously going in in person isn't a real possibility these days.
 
It happened 11 months ago now, there was damage to 2 vehicles but no harm to any person. £10k claim in total ,of which approx £2k is for car hire. I didn't sign indemnity form.

Take a look at post #477 in this thread.

There's a link to the FOS case that I believe made Admiral alter their T&Cs. It used to say they would pursue you (the policyholder) OR the driver

They've cancelled the policy. No cover is provided. Under the uninsured driver process they can only pursue the driver. The FOS case explains this.

I'd refer them to the FOS case and ask them to explain what road traffic law they believe they can pursue the policyholder for the costs and not the driver. Also point out the stress and anxiety they've caused you and consider raising an official complaint against them.
 
Sorry this isn't related to the current coversation- hope it goes well for you TNMN of course- but I must ask. Everywhere I see people suggesting talking to CAB about the indemnity letter, but what is the specific route people are taking to talk to the right advisors? Last I tried they told me they only deal with debt and housing. Obviously going in in person isn't a real possibility these days.

As far as I know no one yet has found a legal advisor with the right skills and knowledge to give appropriate advice. It needs someone who understands the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Act and the uninsured driver processes.
 
As far as I know no one yet has found a legal advisor with the right skills and knowledge to give appropriate advice. It needs someone who understands the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Act and the uninsured driver processes.
Ha at least it isn't just me then 😆 It's a good job you guys are all here! This thread- and others with your input- have been invaluable in preparing to face these hounds. So thank you!
 
Take a look at post #477 in this thread.

There's a link to the FOS case that I believe made Admiral alter their T&Cs. It used to say they would pursue you (the policyholder) OR the driver

They've cancelled the policy. No cover is provided. Under the uninsured driver process they can only pursue the driver. The FOS case explains this.

I'd refer them to the FOS case and ask them to explain what road traffic law they believe they can pursue the policyholder for the costs and not the driver. Also point out the stress and anxiety they've caused you and consider raising an official complaint against them.
I agree. They should be pursuing the driver. They were happy enough to insure him in the first place.
 
Not sure I fully understand the question but in all these years I've not heard of Admiral taking a case to court.

The Admiral exclusion clause does not need a DD conviction. It just needs you to be over the prescribed limit. Lower than the level at which the police prosecute.
So it sounds like everyone gives in and pays Admiral without any challenge in court?
 
So it sounds like everyone gives in and pays Admiral without any challenge in court?

It's a bit of a mystery what happens.

My son didn't pay anything after a long period of patchy correspondence, challenges and reduced claims. He had no assets or full time job so nothing worth pursuing. From £23k they dropped it to under £10k.

I do think many enter into a payment plan or pay it off, dependent on the size of the claim and what they can afford.

Unfortunately very few people who come on here come back to record what happened.
Occasionally someone will DM me to let me know.

I think the threat of being taken to court is rarely, if ever followed through. People cave in, or they agree a payment plan, or the problem goes away.
Finding someone competent to defend you in court seems to be difficult and no doubt expensive.

I suspect Admiral wouldn't like to have their exclusion clause tested in court otherwise they'd whisk you off to court for the full amount after a couple of letters. Plus the adverse publicity might wake up punters who only look at the price.

No idea how much they manage to recover but I suspect in the grand scheme of £500m profits per year its a tiny amount.

My advice has always been to challenge the costs, dig your heels in and drag it out.
Don't disclose your income and assets unless it's a low figure with nothing to spare.

You'll get plenty of warning before court action so ignore the threats of legal action, but never ignore letters from the court.
It is almost certain they will reduce the figure if you robustly challenge so don't give up at the first hurdle.
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top