Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy

[Depressed Dad]

There is a chance that Admiral look on here but I'm sure they must have many other cases to deal with, not just the ones on here.

Using the dates, amounts and description of the event they could probably work out which case it relates to. However that might be giving Admiral too much credit because I found them to be pretty useless a lot of the time. They may have got smarter in the past 10 years but I've yet to see any compelling evidence of that.

I suspect they'll put more effort into pursuing those that they think will be able to pay.

Therefore I wouldn't give away any information about assets or ability to pay.

Let them do the hard yards to find that out.
I doubt they expend too much time and money trying to recover costs. That's why the advice is always to robustly challenge the claim and be a PITA.

 

[Sundog]

What you infer and what you can prove from anything written are two different things. I would suggest that if you went to court Admiral would be using information obtained from the Police, not from a website where anyone can easily impersonate anyone else and say what they want. I feel you give them too much credit, but heh, only write what you feel comfortable with.

All true, but I only speak from my own experiences. They do know this place exists.

Inference might not be admissible, but it certainly influences whether or not something is worth pursuing. They have a file on all of us ever insured by them, which they share wantonly; let’s not forget.

Anyway, I don’t intend to argue with you over what I know a business can and will do to prop up a business model; a part of which trades upon preying on the drink-drive stigma.

Personally I think it’s disgracefully cynical how I know they operate. They have closed further loopholes since 2020, because they knew their policy wording was woolly in the eyes of the law.

All that being said, it was our fault, of course.

 

[Sundog]

There is a chance that Admiral look on here but I'm sure they must have many other cases to deal with, not just the ones on here.

Using the dates, amounts and description of the event they could probably work out which case it relates to. However that might be giving Admiral too much credit because I found them to be pretty useless a lot if the time. They may have got smarter in the past 10 years but I've yet to see any compelling evidence of that.

I suspect they'll put more effort into pursuing those that they think will be able to pay.

Therefore I wouldn't give away any information about assets or ability to pay.

Let them do the hard yards to find that out.
I doubt they expend too much time and money trying to recover costs. That's why the advice is always to robustly challenge the claim and be a PITA.

All this is true too, and they have become smarter. It’s probably a KPI for whoever runs their department overseeing this. Again, it would be incredibly naive to assume that it isn’t.

 

[Depressed Dad]

What hasn't changed is getting to get to hear the outcome of cases.

They still don't seem to end up in court which is strange because it's not difficult to use the Small Claims process.
If Admiral (and others) think they're on solid ground then why drag it out for years?

 

[Sundog]

What hasn't changed is getting to get to hear the outcome of cases.

They still don't seem to end up in court which is strange because it's not difficult to use the Small Claims process.
If Admiral (and others) think they're on solid ground then why drag it out for years?

I think perhaps it’s because so many people fold out of fear. The indemnity form, and the subsequent process they follow, is evidently enough to make many accept the longer-term hardship of cheap ‘insurance’.

 

[Pad456dy]

Has anyone actually been to court in any of these cases?

 

[Depressed Dad]

Has anyone actually been to court in any of these cases?

Never seems to happen, or people never come back here to share their outcomes.

Can't find anything to suggest that it is Admiral's normal course of action.

It's pretty easy to take a case through the small claims court. I often wonder why they don't don't if they believe they follow a sound legal process backed up by law.
Perhaps they don't want their actions tested in court. It's a very grey area.

 

[Sundog]

I’ve seen (Googled) quite a few Ombudsman referrals over this, which mostly side with the insurer (Admiral, or their seemingly growing array of counterparts). Which would suggest that their approach does stand up; particularly after 2020 when the policy-clause regarding this was tightened. It’s one reason why, unless you were completely innocent and otherwise ‘insured’, the Ombudsman should really be a last resort in the 6-year countdown.

Personally I think that there are probably several reasons we don’t hear of too many actual court cases:

1) Signing the indemnity form means they don’t have to take you to court, because you’ve agreed to further T&Cs which will make you liable. I bet a fair few panic at this and the threat of increased costs, and so fold there and then.

2) For those who don’t sign it, the correspondence chain that follows is particularly aggressive; and also not conciliatory in anyway at all. For those who didn’t sign the indemnity, these threats probably only add to an already ominous appraisal of it all, and the second you hand over your financials it also illustrates a willingness/admission on the driver’s part to cooperate.

3) Court is always a last resort, in many civil cases. Of the (few) civil lawyers out there willing to defend this, I suspect many would suggest avoiding this scenario altogether, simply as it would merely incur far greater costs (both your legal fees, and theirs) should the court side with Admiral. Especially (if as mentioned above) any Ombudsman appeal has been unsuccessful. The lone man versus the PLC is always a David vs Goliath scenario.

4) Not to mention all of the above, one wonders how many cases are simply written off if the driver simply cannot pay. A lot of drivers’ entire livelihoods are wrecked by a DUI conviction; it’s therefore not farcical to assume they simply don’t go after some people; because it would be in nobody’s interests to other than the lawyers. They probably even credit-check after some time has elapsed (which it will do to obtain a ruling against you should you not sign), to gather and collate costs; not to mention the suspected tactic of allowing one to rebuild their life following a conviction. Which is very cynical indeed.

Above all, I think many fold long before this. But it is curious as to why testimony or evidence of court is so hard to find. I’m sure I stumbled across a few such transcripts, but they are hard to find.

And - I think of those who fold and a compromise is reached (which it surely often is) - many probably don’t really want to shout about it. And/or an NDA is signed perhaps. Who knows.

But it does make you wonder, as you say. It can’t be that uncommon.

 

[Depressed Dad]

I’ve seen (Googled) quite a few Ombudsman referrals over this, which mostly side with the insurer (Admiral, or their seemingly growing array of counterparts). Which would suggest that their approach does stand up; particularly after 2020 when the policy-clause regarding this was tightened. It’s one reason why, unless you were completely innocent and otherwise ‘insured’, the Ombudsman should really be a last resort in the 6-year countdown.

Personally I think that there are probably several reasons we don’t hear of too many actual court cases:

1) Signing the indemnity form means they don’t have to take you to court, because you’ve agreed to further T&Cs which will make you liable. I bet a fair few panic at this and the threat of increased costs, and so fold there and then.

2) For those who don’t sign it, the correspondence chain that follows is particularly aggressive; and also not conciliatory in anyway at all. For those who didn’t sign the indemnity, these threats probably only add to an already ominous appraisal of it all, and the second you hand over your financials it also illustrates a willingness/admission on the driver’s part to cooperate.

3) Court is always a last resort, in many civil cases. Of the (few) civil lawyers out there willing to defend this, I suspect many would suggest avoiding this scenario altogether, simply as it would merely incur far greater costs (both your legal fees, and theirs) should the court side with Admiral. Especially (if as mentioned above) any Ombudsman appeal has been unsuccessful. The lone man versus the PLC is always a David vs Goliath scenario.

4) Not to mention all of the above, one wonders how many cases are simply written off if the driver simply cannot pay. A lot of drivers’ entire livelihoods are wrecked by a DUI conviction; it’s therefore not farcical to assume they simply don’t go after some people; because it would be in nobody’s interests to other than the lawyers. They probably even credit-check after some time has elapsed (which it will do to obtain a ruling against you should you not sign), to gather and collate costs; not to mention the suspected tactic of allowing one to rebuild their life following a conviction. Which is very cynical indeed.

Above all, I think many fold long before this. But it is curious as to why testimony or evidence of court is so hard to find. I’m sure I stumbled across a few such transcripts, but they are hard to find.

And - I think of those who fold and a compromise is reached (which it surely often is) - many probably don’t really want to shout about it. And/or an NDA is signed perhaps. Who knows.

But it does make you wonder, as you say. It can’t be that uncommon.

I agree the Ombudsman tends to side with the insurer. They expect policyholder (and presumably named drivers) to have read the T&Cs and also understood the law if refers to.

1) Signing the indemnity form doesn't seem to have any impact on the outcome. It's a hollow promise from Admiral to reduce the claim in exchange for a promise for you to pay up. Promising to pay before you know the amount being claimed.

2) It's up to the individual if they want to comply or resist. I don't judge people on what route they take.
Debt collection invariably involves threats of varying degrees. It's a game of brinkmanship. It can be intimidating, especially if it's a life changing amount but resisting and challenging is likely to reduce the size of the claim.
Admiral appear to be more aggressive these days but there is little more that can do other than to take you to court.

3) Agreed. Insurance law is a niche area and rather grey.
Specialist barrister's usually represent insurance companies arguing with each other over liability.

4) Admiral try to do this as cheaply as possible so they'll go for the softer targets. I think they do probably wait these days. No point pursuing someone who is skint. Even a court order doesn't guarantee payment.

It is unclear how these cases end up. I suspect it's a mix of people agreeing a payment plan or just keeping theirs heads down in the hope it goes away. There might be NDAs but it seems unlikely.

 

[Pad456dy]

The moral of the story seems to be toughen it out until the statute of limitations is up is it??
The Statute of limitations being 6 years. Why would anyone give them anything if things don't end up going to court?
Are people agreeing to payment plans because of threats of litigation from whatever insurance company?
Are the threats coming from the insurance company's legal experts or from the company themselves?

 

[TCB1989]

In all honesty its worth fighting and some times not worth ignoring, i am all for this thread and the sharks that are the insurance companies. The threatening letters of "if you dont contact us we will pass this to our legal team" is enough to scare some people, I for one wasn't standing for it, although that being said with some correspondence and some back and forth at the reluctance of Admiral to send through a break down i wasn't backing down until i had this.

My incident was in 2019 and they decided to chase me for a staggering sum nearly £8k, after chasing up and fighting back, and finally getting a breakdown of what was what and also "using my solicitor card" back at them they came back and said we will settle for £2k, which in hindsight i should have fought harder to not pay at all, however ultimately i know i am in the wrong, it was me drink driving and involved in an incident so have offered to pay them back at an amount I can afford per month and not a penny more.

Moral to the story, there's two outcomes - ignore them and hope it goes away, i couldn't get away with ignoring them for an additional 2 years for the limitation to time out, however do NOT back down to them, as a wise man once told me "knowledge is power", as Depressed Dad posts suggests fight them, dont back down, question everything, drag everything out and luckily for me fighting and putting pressure back on them the sharks settled for less that 1/4 of the original claim.

We were in the wrong for putting our keys in the ignition over the limit BUT we have all been banned, some had community service, some had curfews, some had suspended sentences, some have lost jobs/homes and family over it however and have been punished and also served our time so to speak, but it doesn't give the insurance companies the right to do this and expect us to be blindly led with the threats of legal action and CCJ's, whether your incident was 10 weeks or 10 years ago it is a vulnerable time and subject to keep hashing up.

 

[CPWP]

In all honesty its worth fighting and some times not worth ignoring, i am all for this thread and the sharks that are the insurance companies. The threatening letters of "if you dont contact us we will pass this to our legal team" is enough to scare some people, I for one wasn't standing for it, although that being said with some correspondence and some back and forth at the reluctance of Admiral to send through a break down i wasn't backing down until i had this.

My incident was in 2019 and they decided to chase me for a staggering sum nearly £8k, after chasing up and fighting back, and finally getting a breakdown of what was what and also "using my solicitor card" back at them they came back and said we will settle for £2k, which in hindsight i should have fought harder to not pay at all, however ultimately i know i am in the wrong, it was me drink driving and involved in an incident so have offered to pay them back at an amount I can afford per month and not a penny more.

Moral to the story, there's two outcomes - ignore them and hope it goes away, i couldn't get away with ignoring them for an additional 2 years for the limitation to time out, however do NOT back down to them, as a wise man once told me "knowledge is power", as Depressed Dad posts suggests fight them, dont back down, question everything, drag everything out and luckily for me fighting and putting pressure back on them the sharks settled for less that 1/4 of the original claim.

We were in the wrong for putting our keys in the ignition over the limit BUT we have all been banned, some had community service, some had curfews, some had suspended sentences, some have lost jobs/homes and family over it however and have been punished and also served our time so to speak, but it doesn't give the insurance companies the right to do this and expect us to be blindly led with the threats of legal action and CCJ's, whether your incident was 10 weeks or 10 years ago it is a vulnerable time and subject to keep hashing up.

Was it ever categorically confirmed that the Statute of Limitation is 6 years and if so from what date exactly.

 

[TCB1989]

Was it ever categorically confirmed that the Statute of Limitation is 6 years and if so from what date exactly.

The claim from what I can make it out from the day of the incident, they have 6 years to chase, from the correspondence I had with Admiral I got the low down that claims can remain open for 6 years, however personal injury claims have around 3-4 years to become ineligible to claim for, which was good to know!

 

[Depressed Dad]

In all honesty its worth fighting and some times not worth ignoring, i am all for this thread and the sharks that are the insurance companies. The threatening letters of "if you dont contact us we will pass this to our legal team" is enough to scare some people, I for one wasn't standing for it, although that being said with some correspondence and some back and forth at the reluctance of Admiral to send through a break down i wasn't backing down until i had this.

My incident was in 2019 and they decided to chase me for a staggering sum nearly £8k, after chasing up and fighting back, and finally getting a breakdown of what was what and also "using my solicitor card" back at them they came back and said we will settle for £2k, which in hindsight i should have fought harder to not pay at all, however ultimately i know i am in the wrong, it was me drink driving and involved in an incident so have offered to pay them back at an amount I can afford per month and not a penny more.

Moral to the story, there's two outcomes - ignore them and hope it goes away, i couldn't get away with ignoring them for an additional 2 years for the limitation to time out, however do NOT back down to them, as a wise man once told me "knowledge is power", as Depressed Dad posts suggests fight them, dont back down, question everything, drag everything out and luckily for me fighting and putting pressure back on them the sharks settled for less that 1/4 of the original claim.

We were in the wrong for putting our keys in the ignition over the limit BUT we have all been banned, some had community service, some had curfews, some had suspended sentences, some have lost jobs/homes and family over it however and have been punished and also served our time so to speak, but it doesn't give the insurance companies the right to do this and expect us to be blindly led with the threats of legal action and CCJ's, whether your incident was 10 weeks or 10 years ago it is a vulnerable time and subject to keep hashing up.

TCB sums up my thoughts on this.

I'm sure the losses are factored into Admiral's business model. Recovery of anything above the debt recovery staff costs is a bonus so they'll always negotiate.

I suspect they live in fear of pushing someone too far. Ruining someone's life in court, or God forbid, a suicide would be bad for business.

What grinds my gears about them and keeps me going is:

a) Passing on the obviously inflated claims
b) 'over the prescribed limit' rather than a conviction
c) their incompetence
d) threatening to pursue the policyholder when it's a named driver who was driving
e) every RTC is caused by a negligent driver

 

[Hardluck]

I still wanted to share the results of my case when it eventually happens. Admiral went blessedly quiet back in February and I foolishly dared to hope that was the end of it. But nope they're back on me as of today and after a difficult year career and family wise I am struggling to manage this.
The stress of dealing with this causes actually lead to a panic attack today after opening the letter, first in my life. They expect repayments to begin in October, which is not happening, but I just don't have the strength to face it today.

 

[DJLINNEN]

I still wanted to share the results of my case when it eventually happens. Admiral went blessedly quiet back in February and I foolishly dared to hope that was the end of it. But nope they're back on me as of today and after a difficult year career and family wise I am struggling to manage this.
The stress of dealing with this causes actually lead to a panic attack today after opening the letter, first in my life. They expect repayments to begin in October, which is not happening, but I just don't have the strength to face it today.

Sounds about right they know they have time on there aside probably assuming give it a few years til your back on your feet. I had an accident few years back and nothings been settled from my insurer had a letter from solicitor rang them near on a year ago and haven't heard anything since. One of the worst things you can do is have an accident in a car , you would get less grief for a murder. From my experience I thought prison would be the hard bit but it's just the not knowing when the letter comes I know a lad who was on my wing who'd done the same as me, he recieved a letter 6 months after he'd been released his also had multiple court dates at County Court he hasn't attended still waiting to hear back how his getting on but as some of you have stated surely if you have no assets and diminished income due to no licence it surely wouldn't be worth there while pursuing it.

 

[Hardluck]

Sounds about right they know they have time on there aside probably assuming give it a few years til your back on your feet. I had an accident few years back and nothings been settled from my insurer had a letter from solicitor rang them near on a year ago and haven't heard anything since. One of the worst things you can do is have an accident in a car , you would get less grief for a murder. From my experience I thought prison would be the hard bit but it's just the not knowing when the letter comes I know a lad who was on my wing who'd done the same as me, he recieved a letter 6 months after he'd been released his also had multiple court dates at County Court he hasn't attended still waiting to hear back how his getting on but as some of you have stated surely if you have no assets and diminished income due to no licence it surely wouldn't be worth there while pursuing it.

A lot of my problem is now that I just recently qualified for a career in healthcare and the ****ers know, so they're gonna try and bend me over a barrel because any sort of conviction, on top of my DD offence, will likely get me sacked and barred. They ****ing know they can push me around, but I will not stand for it. Tomorrow I will begin researching and writing a response. I'd hope some of the more wizened victims here may be able to help but you shouldn't rely on others for this sort of thing. I can't afford a solicitor and finding the sort you need for legal advice on this is an impossible prospect anyway.


I just want to live my life and be happy. A small mistake should not ruin a life.

 

[DJLINNEN]

A lot of my problem is now that I just recently qualified for a career in healthcare and the ****ers know, so they're gonna try and bend me over a barrel because any sort of conviction, on top of my DD offence, will likely get me sacked and barred. They ****ing know they can push me around, but I will not stand for it. Tomorrow I will begin researching and writing a response. I'd hope some of the more wizened victims here may be able to help but you shouldn't rely on others for this sort of thing. I can't afford a solicitor and finding the sort you need for legal advice on this is an impossible prospect anyway.


I just want to live my life and be happy. A small mistake should not ruin a life.

That's the only bad thing in our situation the more you better yourself the more they think they can take off you. Lose lose situation really probably better off on the dole but that's no life is it. Good to luck to resolving the issue as decent legal representative or advice ain't cheap.

 

[Hardluck]

That's the only bad thing in our situation the more you better yourself the more they think they can take off you. Lose lose situation really probably better off on the dole but that's no life is it. Good to luck to resolving the issue as decent legal representative or advice ain't cheap.

Yeah it really is a pile of **** lol if they'd drop it to 10k I'd just agree a plan and pay it over a decade, but no business greed will forever be a thing.

I'll worry about it tomorrow.

 

[DJLINNEN]

Yeah it really is a pile of **** lol if they'd drop it to 10k I'd just agree a plan and pay it over a decade, but no business greed will forever be a thing.

I'll worry about it tomorrow.

Yes mate they can't take what you haven't got, although I don't know if they can force you to bankrupt although i think theyd rather agree to a payment plan as something is better than nothing. Although if that's what it takes few years of bad credit rating to get them off your back suppose it all depends on how many zeros they're chasing you for.