(Admiral) Received the Consent and indemnity letter - seeking advice

[Hardluck]

No worries. It’s a game of brinkmanship and keeping them going, and not saying the wrong thing. At least you’re doing letters and not phone calls. Best way to eke it out, and phone calls always work in their favour.

Not a game I've much experienced in to be honest haha! I refused to communicate by phone, I want written evidence I can keep saved of everything, no surprises from them. I spoke to them once on the phone and they were snotty and rude, which I complained about in my first complaint letter (they accepted this point) and have not spoke to them since.

It's been a very busy Christmas with my career and life in general, but I did receive access to their closed network and the 7 documents they had regarding my case. I haven't really had a good chance to print them, let alone sift through everything from then yet to build my next letter around. New career, lots of assessments, not a lot of time. They've sent a "Final Reminder" letter to me this week with the usual threats and blah blah, so I will send a letter next week making a short apology for the delay but, as I have told them previously, I am in a critical point of my training and that takes precedent and I will get back to them as soon as I reasonably can.

It will be a slog though. I haven't much experience in this area at all, I have seven documents to work through to figure out where they got each of their costs from, and if there's any way to get them to cut some costs. I note the actual vehicle cost was just over half of the costs they are trying to dump on me. I just want to get them to agree to half as a one off payment, and close this case for good. Any suggestions/experiences any one has already had in the negotiation bit?

it made no difference, so my advice is don't sign it, if you do, you are agreeing to any costs levelled at you.

Unfortunately I did sign it, just making statements to them that it is on the understanding that they do all they can to minimise costs, for what it is worth. I do not mind paying my dues, if some of the costs can be mitigated.

 

[Hardluck]

Double post please delete.

 

[Henri0000]

Hi, i have read through the post and some interesting points here. I am now in a similar position having recently received the ''CONSENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT'' form from Admiral. I am unsure if i should sign this agreement, there are a lot of hypothetical situations they suggest in the letter regarding third party(s) , however you are able to terminate the agreement in writing but still liable to indemnify EUI for any payments made by EUI under this agreement.

Assuming in my own situation, damaged caused to parked vehicles (side panels) and no PI claim, The third party(s) claims through their insurance for repairs and providing vehicle hire should be straightforward, I would assume as the incident was 7 months ago that third party(s) have completed all claims so Admiral should be able to provide these prior to signing/agreeing ?

As i understand the C&I form is a fairly standard document where the Insurer declines indemnity based on a breach of the policy, but is required by Road Traffic Act Law to settle a third party claim or claims.

Essentially it allows the Insurer to settle the claim with your authority, and to then seek recovery of the amounts paid (whatever they may be). I think this is my main concern as although they claim they have no desire to pay exaggerated or over inflated claims, based on my own experience dealing with Admiral and poor service along with several others detailed in this forum its hard to believe this to be the case.

some advice i was given below;

If you do not wish to sign the document, you will need to raise that with your Insurer and see what they say. They may proceed to settle and then seek recovery anyway; or they may redirect the third party(s) directly to you, leaving you to handle the claim(s). The latter option may sometimes result in the third party issuing proceedings against you and your Insurer, which will then increase the overall cost of the claim and hence the debt that your Insurer will ultimately seek to recover from you. Your Insurer may also appoint their own Solicitor to pursue recovery against you, and will include the costs of their own Solicitor too.

If you would like formal advice, you may need to consult a Solicitor who deals with debt matters

 

[Sundog]

Don’t sign. You’ll be fine writing a blank cheque if you do.

 

[Luna2000]

Hi, i have read through the post and some interesting points here. I am now in a similar position having recently received the ''CONSENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT'' form from Admiral. I am unsure if i should sign this agreement, there are a lot of hypothetical situations they suggest in the letter regarding third party(s) , however you are able to terminate the agreement in writing but still liable to indemnify EUI for any payments made by EUI under this agreement.

Assuming in my own situation, damaged caused to parked vehicles (side panels) and no PI claim, The third party(s) claims through their insurance for repairs and providing vehicle hire should be straightforward, I would assume as the incident was 7 months ago that third party(s) have completed all claims so Admiral should be able to provide these prior to signing/agreeing ?

As i understand the C&I form is a fairly standard document where the Insurer declines indemnity based on a breach of the policy, but is required by Road Traffic Act Law to settle a third party claim or claims.

Essentially it allows the Insurer to settle the claim with your authority, and to then seek recovery of the amounts paid (whatever they may be). I think this is my main concern as although they claim they have no desire to pay exaggerated or over inflated claims, based on my own experience dealing with Admiral and poor service along with several others detailed in this forum its hard to believe this to be the case.

some advice i was given below;

If you do not wish to sign the document, you will need to raise that with your Insurer and see what they say. They may proceed to settle and then seek recovery anyway; or they may redirect the third party(s) directly to you, leaving you to handle the claim(s). The latter option may sometimes result in the third party issuing proceedings against you and your Insurer, which will then increase the overall cost of the claim and hence the debt that your Insurer will ultimately seek to recover from you. Your Insurer may also appoint their own Solicitor to pursue recovery against you, and will include the costs of their own Solicitor too.

If you would like formal advice, you may need to consult a Solicitor who deals with debt matters

Legally Admiral has to settle the claim. They have no option as at the time of the accident you did have insurance with them and it wasn't the third parties' fault(s) that they suffered a loss.

Their fine print however will say that in the event that it can be proven you had consumed ANY alcohol prior to the accident, then you will be liable to Admiral for any costs directly attributable to the accident and that Admiral will not cover any losses suffered by you as a result of the accident.

To be honest, I think it is a pretty simple concept to get your head around and was designed to ensure that the innocent parties' were not left financially out of pocket because of your negligent accidents.

I am not sure about the legal requirement for you to sign and indemnity form, as all of the above will be covered in your Insurance Contract with them.

Plus, just think how much you would be on the hook for if someone had suffered life changing injuries because of the accident.

 

[Depressed Dad]

Legally Admiral has to settle the claim. They have no option as at the time of the accident you did have insurance with them and it wasn't the third parties' fault(s) that they suffered a loss.

Their fine print however will say that in the event that it can be proven you had consumed ANY alcohol prior to the accident, then you will be liable to Admiral for any costs directly attributable to the accident and that Admiral will not cover any losses suffered by you as a result of the accident.

To be honest, I think it is a pretty simple concept to get your head around and was designed to ensure that the innocent parties' were not left financially out of pocket because of your negligent accidents.

I am not sure about the legal requirement for you to sign and indemnity form, as all of the above will be covered in your Insurance Contract with them.

Plus, just think how much you would be on the hook for if someone had suffered life changing injuries because of the accident.

Yes, it is pretty simple, but you clearly don't understand the detail.

So let's look at the 'fine print' in their latest policy document.
It says:

11.Drink and drugs clause If an accident happens while any insured person is driving and:
- is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
- is driving while unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
- fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason.
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

The legal alcohol limit in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for driving is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood or 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.
AIUI the police prosecute at 40mg per 100ml.

Admiral set the bar lower than the police.

Also if driving while unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or not.

So take care too with your prescribed medicines, or having too many energy drinks.

Plus, as I have said many times, 'accidents' are pretty much always caused by negligence.

Innocent parties are protected against uninsured drivers. The Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) settled £349m in claims against uninsured drivers in 2021.

Most people accept responsibility for their drink driving. What really riles people is the inflated claims that people get away with and where Admiral do little or nothing to make it a fair claim. The MIB have spent £m's getting the personal injury claims process simplified and without the need for ambulance chasers.

 

[Luna2000]

Yes, it is pretty simple, but you clearly don't understand the detail.

So let's look at the 'fine print' in their latest policy document.
It says:



The legal alcohol limit in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for driving is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood or 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.
AIUI the police prosecute at 40mg per 100ml.

Admiral set the bar lower than the police.

Also if driving while unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or not.

So take care too with your prescribed medicines, or having too many energy drinks.

Plus, as I have said many times, 'accidents' are pretty much always caused by negligence.

Innocent parties are protected against uninsured drivers. The Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) settled £349m in claims against uninsured drivers in 2021.

Most people accept responsibility for their drink driving. What really riles people is the inflated claims that people get away with and where Admiral do little or nothing to make it a fair claim. The MIB have spent £m's getting the personal injury claims process simplified and without the need for ambulance chasers.

I do understand the detail, but the point was made specifically in relation to alcohol consumption, not drugs.

So staying with alcohol, driving while unfit through drink does not require you to be over the prescribed breath alcohol limit. Some people, especially those new to drinking alcohol, can get become unfit very easily and under the prescribed limit.

Plus the driver was not 'uninsured' in the sense that Admiral must provide cover to the third party as I have said. The MIB won't in this case come into it. If it did it would be them chasing for recovery of costs, not Admiral.

Have a look at this.

Is your car insurance invalid if you drink & drive? - Drinkdriving.org

If you have an accident while driving above the legal limit your insurer is obligated to pay out for the costs of claims by third parties.

www.drinkdriving.org

 

[Depressed Dad]

Who decides if you are unfit to drive through drink or drugs? I suggest the police have to decide, not Admiral.
Pretty Sure Admiral would rely on a successful conviction of driving whilst unfit to cancel the policy.

A positive reading below the the 35mg limit is not a guarantee of a cancelled policy.
We have seen examples of the FOS overturning Admiral decision to cancel a policy when later readings at station are under the limit.

Also the FOS have highlighted lack of clarity whether Admiral are the RTA insurer or MIB Article 75 insurer.
MIB do not pay out for everything, especially where other policies exist, so it could work out cheaper through MIB or Article 75.

Obviously it is best to avoid alcohol completely if you plan to drive, even the morning after a heavy session is risky.

 

[Luna2000]

Who decides if you are unfit to drive through drink or drugs? I suggest the police have to decide, not Admiral.
Pretty Sure Admiral would rely on a successful conviction of driving whilst unfit to cancel the policy.

A positive reading below the the 35mg limit is not a guarantee of a cancelled policy.
We have seen examples of the FOS overturning Admiral decision to cancel a policy when later readings at station are under the limit.

Also the FOS have highlighted lack of clarity whether Admiral are the RTA insurer or MIB Article 75 insurer.
MIB do not pay out for everything, especially where other policies exist, so it could work out cheaper through MIB or Article 75.

Obviously it is best to avoid alcohol completely if you plan to drive, even the morning after a heavy session is risky.

The Police can charge you with being unfit even if you are within the legal limit.

The entire point of having insurance is so that innocent parties do not suffer. I do not know for sure, but I would imagine it would be illegal to sell car insurance and exclude any third-party claims because the driver insured had been drinking.

Regarding keeping costs down to a minimum.

My wing mirror was badly damaged (driver's side,) while my car was parked. The other party admitted liability and I began a claim through my insurers. Now you would have thought that the most economic way to replace a wing mirror was for me to take it a garage on the insurer's list, they assess the damage, I leave, they order the part and then I return when the part arrives to have it fitted. (Yes, I do know not all accident damage is as simple as this.)

Now what actually happened was that my car was taken away for 3 weeks, I was supplied with a hire car and then my car was repaired and returned. As a convicted drink driver I discovered near the end of this saga that I hadn't been insured to drive the hired car I had been given due to this conviction. (if you search you can find my post on it on the forum.)

As regards costs, the hire car will have been in the region of £1,500 plus the costs of the wing mirror, the labour and the accident management companies overheads. I doubt all of this will have come to less than £2,000.

Madness.

 

[Guygibson]

Oh I know. I've just seen Guy suggest his yolo bin strat before in other threads and it's still not a good idea lol

Hey worked for me my insurance paid out on the car I hit 4 months later I got a phone call from insurance saying they had paid out for the other car out of curtesy I said you paid out because you had to anyway they said they want the money back I said get in the cue my ex had left me in serious debt never heard from them again never will now been back driving 8 months and no problem getting insured

 

[Henri0000]

Hi, i have read through the post and some interesting points here. I am now in a similar position having recently received the ''CONSENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT'' form from Admiral. I am unsure if i should sign this agreement, there are a lot of hypothetical situations they suggest in the letter regarding third party(s) , however you are able to terminate the agreement in writing but still liable to indemnify EUI for any payments made by EUI under this agreement.

Assuming in my own situation, damaged caused to parked vehicles (side panels) and no PI claim, The third party(s) claims through their insurance for repairs and providing vehicle hire should be straightforward, I would assume as the incident was 7 months ago that third party(s) have completed all claims so Admiral should be able to provide these prior to signing/agreeing ?

As i understand the C&I form is a fairly standard document where the Insurer declines indemnity based on a breach of the policy, but is required by Road Traffic Act Law to settle a third party claim or claims.

Essentially it allows the Insurer to settle the claim with your authority, and to then seek recovery of the amounts paid (whatever they may be). I think this is my main concern as although they claim they have no desire to pay exaggerated or over inflated claims, based on my own experience dealing with Admiral and poor service along with several others detailed in this forum its hard to believe this to be the case.

some advice i was given below;

If you do not wish to sign the document, you will need to raise that with your Insurer and see what they say. They may proceed to settle and then seek recovery anyway; or they may redirect the third party(s) directly to you, leaving you to handle the claim(s). The latter option may sometimes result in the third party issuing proceedings against you and your Insurer, which will then increase the overall cost of the claim and hence the debt that your Insurer will ultimately seek to recover from you. Your Insurer may also appoint their own Solicitor to pursue recovery against you, and will include the costs of their own Solicitor too.

If you would like formal advice, you may need to consult a Solicitor who deals with debt matters

A follow up to my previous post. I had some legal advice around the time of receiving the indemnity letter, I was told not to sign any thing. I responded to Admirals email stating I would not be willing to sign this document at this time until I was able to review the claims and reports obtained detailing the damage and cost break downs from third parties as it seemed I would be signing a blank cheque if I did. Admiral had been very quiet since I replied to them regarding the identity letter in April 23, I received a very short reply In October 23 they sent me a letter saying loss adjusters continue to make enquiries with third parties property representatives (one claim was for property damage, however to my knowledge no damage was done and cctv of the incident confirms this) just damaged to some parked vehicles and my own.
Obviously I am not naive to think they have forgotten about me, just wondering if anyone else has experience in this, how long I can expect to wait until they come knocking chasing the third party costs. Do they have a time limit on being able to per-sue this, obviously i learned a hard lesson and life has moved on now. To note I was not convicted, however my insurance with Admiral was void due to failed breathalyser test at the scene, bloods returned below the prescribed limit.
Thanks for any advice

 

[here now]

A follow up to my previous post. I had some legal advice around the time of receiving the indemnity letter, I was told not to sign any thing. I responded to Admirals email stating I would not be willing to sign this document at this time until I was able to review the claims and reports obtained detailing the damage and cost break downs from third parties as it seemed I would be signing a blank cheque if I did. Admiral had been very quiet since I replied to them regarding the identity letter in April 23, I received a very short reply In October 23 they sent me a letter saying loss adjusters continue to make enquiries with third parties property representatives (one claim was for property damage, however to my knowledge no damage was done and cctv of the incident confirms this) just damaged to some parked vehicles and my own.
Obviously I am not naive to think they have forgotten about me, just wondering if anyone else has experience in this, how long I can expect to wait until they come knocking chasing the third party costs. Do they have a time limit on being able to per-sue this, obviously i learned a hard lesson and life has moved on now. To note I was not convicted, however my insurance with Admiral was void due to failed breathalyser test at the scene, bloods returned below the prescribed limit.
Thanks for any advice

Out of curiosity as your situation sounds similar to mine, although I am still very early in the claims process and not with Admiral, did you receive a numerical roadside breathalyser result or just a “fail” which led to your bloods being taken? And may I clarify if your policy was voided or cancelled? Thank you in advance for sharing any insights.

 

[Henri0000]

Out of curiosity as your situation sounds similar to mine, although I am still very early in the claims process and not with Admiral, did you receive a numerical roadside breathalyser result or just a “fail” which led to your bloods being taken? And may I clarify if your policy was voided or cancelled? Thank you in advance for sharing any insights.

I was breathalysed roadside & arrested, I blew 41ug, it was due to the nature of the accident I was taken to A&E to be checked over. It was there I had bloods samples taken, I requested to keep a sample and had this analysed by a UKAS accredited lab at my own cost, results came back at 74mg, I never recieved the blood results from the police. Even though blood results returned below the prescribed limit Admiral rejected my claim and canceled my policy under clause 11.drink and drugs policy and their decision is always on the balance of probability

 

[Bad_karma]

Obviously I am not naive to think they have forgotten about me, just wondering if anyone else has experience in this, how long I can expect to wait until they come knocking chasing the third party costs.

I waited 18 months, albeit I did have several personal injury claims. As you say they wrote to you in October so definitely have not forgotten. The knock will come, unfortunately it’s waiting game.

Do they have a time limit on being able to per-sue this

The general answer to this is 6 years. However, for it to become statute barred all three of the following must apply

• they can’t have started a court claim,
• you haven’t paid anything towards it for the last 6 years
• you have not written to them admitting you owe the debt for the last 6 years