Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy

Convicted Driver Insurance
Hi All,
I have found myself in the same situation, recently - i know i am to blame but i was not aware of this clause when signing / agreeing to the policy (not that it would have mattered, as i never intended to get behind the wheel and cause an accident).
I am just grateful everyone was OK and so was i ...

That said i feel the costs of what they are claiming are extremely excessive.
I love a spreadsheet, so have done some research on the value of the car i hit (costs are well more that the car is worth) and i have worked out via average days hire car costs, that the other party had the hire car for what looks like forever!

After reading a lot of the posts i think the general consensus is to (1) question everything [costs and why item x is included], (2) Do not disclose any financial information (3) aim to drag it out for as long as possibly (4) Go into a payment plan if unsuccessful or concede - which we seem we have to do ??

The bit that confuses and concerns me is their recovery clause -
6. Right of recovery
If an incident occurs which is not covered by this policy and we are required by the law of any country
to make a payment, we can recover that amount from you or any other insured person.”


How can they possible recover costs from someone not involved in the accident just because they are on the policy - surely this cannot be enforced?
Finally and thanks for reading ...
Is there another advice or tips anyone on the group has to offer if they have been through this themselves?

Regards,
Smokey
 
Just to follow up on my saga, insurance sent letter in Jan saying they wanted £14800 off me to recoup there outlay, I offered £7500 as one off full and final payment and they excepted.
Hi - new to this forum, when do you first explain your situation (post number would be great), would like to read from the beginning.
Many Thanks,
Smokey
 
Last edited:
Hi All,
I have found myself in the same situation, recently - i know i am to blame but i was not aware of this clause when signing / agreeing to the policy (not that it would have mattered, as i never intended to get behind the wheel and cause an accident).
I am just grateful everyone was OK and so was i ...

That said i feel the costs of what they are claiming are extremely excessive.
I love a spreadsheet, so have done some research on the value of the car i hit (costs are well more that the car is worth) and i have worked out via average days hire car costs, that the other party had the hire car for what looks like forever!

After reading a lot of the posts i think the general consensus is to (1) question everything [costs and why item x is included], (2) Do not disclose any financial information (3) aim to drag it out for as long as possibly (4) Go into a payment plan if unsuccessful or concede - which we seem we have to do ??

The bit that confuses and concerns me is their recovery clause -
6. Right of recovery
If an incident occurs which is not covered by this policy and we are required by the law of any country
to make a payment, we can recover that amount from you or any other insured person.”


How can they possible recover costs from someone not involved in the accident just because they are on the policy - surely this cannot be enforced?
Finally and thanks for reading ...
Is there another advice or tips anyone on the group has to offer if they have been through this themselves?

Regards,
Smokey

It's a bizarre, unfair clause. I wasn't aware of it.
That implies they can/will pursue any of the named drivers.

As I've said many times before, the named drivers don't read the Policy document and neither do most policyholders.

It's an unfair contract in my opinion. I advise people to steer well clear of Admiral Group and not be sucked in by the cheap policy.

Sounds like you are doing the right things.
The amount they ask for is always negotiable.
 
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.
Thank you. I guess using the Financial Ombudsman would be of benefit. Their reviews on line aren't great, though.
 
Thank you. I guess using the Financial Ombudsman would be of benefit. Their reviews on line aren't great, though.

I had partial success and it dragged out the time by quite a bit.
The case that caused Admiral to change the wording of their exclusion clause is worth a read. I'm not sure they follow the uninsured driver process correctly. Under that they can only pursue the driver, after they settle a CCJ where the third party has taken the driver to court. Perhaps a complaint along those lines might shed more light on it.
 
I found this article which explains in simple terms who is liable in the case of an uninsured driver.

Motor Insurance law for beginners.

The barrister who wrote this is a specialist motor insurance lawyer. I'd love to talk to him! I wonder how much an hour's chat would cost?
Sounds like he usually works for insurance companies trying to push the claim onto another insurer, or the MIB.

One interesting snippet.
First of all, there are some exceptions which are expressly banned by section 148 of the RTA. A good example is a policy term stating that there will be no cover if the driver is using the vehicle under the influence of alcohol........

........You may wonder why insurers bother to include these: the main purpose seems to be to enable the insurer to recover its outlay from the policyholder either under statute or by virtue of a provision in the policy.
 
I've mentioned on here several times that it might be worth raising a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
The outcomes of these complaints are available to view on the FOS website. You can search HERE

The FOS invariably support Admiral in their D&D exclusion clause and in nearly all cases the way Admiral settle the claim. Admiral and the FOS believe the claims are managed in a way that keep costs down and avoids you being taken to court by the third party.

In several cases Admiral continue pursuit despite no conviction. They also make up their own story of events even accusing people of fraud. They often talk about the 'balance of probability' vs 'beyond reasonable doubt', i.e. civil vs criminal burden of proof.

A common theme running through all cases is the ineptness and poor communication of the Admiral case handlers. Many resulting in voluntary or directed offers of compensation - anything from £50 to £250.

The FOS (investigators and Ombudsmen) seem to have little or no understanding of the RTA and uninsured driver processes, barring one specific case which I believe led to changes in the Admiral D&D exclusion clause.

Deciding whether you raise a complaint with the FOS is down to the individual circumstances and I wouldn't raise your hopes of the FOS overturning Admiral's pursuit for settlement of the claim. Keep a record of all the communication with Admiral. Challenge any unfair treatment and ask to be kept informed. Be precise about the grounds for complaint and include the evidence to support your argument.

Below are the D&D exclusion related cases I found. I doubt it's exhaustive but it gives you an idea of how they deal with it. I only looked at Admiral with keywords 'alcohol' and 'drink driving'

Recently quoted in this thread– Ombudsman discusses the relevant insurer statuses RTA, MIB etc. First time this has been mentioned. Still leaves many questions unanswered but led me down another 'interesting' rabbit hole in the motor insurance warren.
Decision Reference DRN-2348509 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Exaggerated claims paid by Admiral. Obvious not all the damage happened in the accident. Ombudsman agreed.
Decision Reference DRN3555897 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Over limit but no prosecution. Good enough for Admiral though. £100 for poor handling of the case.
Decision Reference DRN8803675 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Blew 39mg, not prosecuted but above the prescribed limit.
Decision Reference DRN6091479 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Admiral excluded, based on balance of probability. Not convicted in court due to technicality.
Decision Reference DRN-2608164 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Complainant not kept up to date – Admiral admitted this and offered £250.
Claim increased from £3k to £16k mostly due to PI costs.
Decision Reference DRN-2938759 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Complaint about not being kept up to date. Admiral claim to have interrogated the TP claims.
Decision Reference DRN-2760463 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Complaint about the wording of the exclusion clause not having ‘or drugs’. This goes back to 2017 where the clauses were changed.
Decision Reference DRN-2881208 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Complaint about the way Admiral dealt with the claim – applied pressure. Car should have been written off. Accident happened 1st day of policy no time to read the T&Cs.
Decision Reference DRN-3139550 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Interesting story of Admiral unfairly avoiding the policy and accusing people of fraud. Ombudsman directed Admiral to refund the claim and pay compensation.
Decision Reference DRN-2825987 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Admiral accused driver of fraud and claimed driver had crashed car whilst under influence of alcohol. No other cars or damage but they didn’t pay out. Overturned by ombudsman.
Decision Reference DRN-3225787 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

And for completeness here is my FOS case - Depressed Dad FoS case
Partially upheld on the basis that no cover was provided by the policy so I successfully argued that they can't register a claim against me and affect my NCD.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for this. Very useful reading. There is one interesting one to add to the list. DRN5654740.. David and Goliath one, certainly as FO have upheld the complaint
 
Thank you for this. Very useful reading. There is one interesting one to add to the list. DRN5654740.. David and Goliath one, certainly as FO have upheld the complaint
Yes I have read this one. Very petty of Admiral. They do act like judge, jury and executioner in a lot of cases.
 
Looks like LV (my insurer) now have a specific alcohol and drugs exclusion clause. Maybe in the last year or so.

6. Alcohol and drugs
We won’t pay more than our legal liability under compulsory motor insurance legislation for any claim if the driver of your car at the time of the accident:
• is found to be over the permitted limit for alcohol or drugs, either through roadside test or evidentiary sample;
• is unfit to drive through alcohol or drugs, whether prescribed or not: or
• fails to give a swab, breath, blood or urine sample, when required to do so, without lawful reason.

Where we’re required to make a payment in such circumstances, we reserve the right to recover any such payments from you or the driver of your car at the time of the accident.

It doesn't state that they'll cancel the policy and provide no cover, unlike Admiral.
It does say they'll recover from 'you, or the driver'. The RTA does allow this, if you have given permission for the driver to drive the vehicle.
That's irrespective of the exclusion clause as far as I can understand it.

They'll presumably be the contractual insurer or at least the RTA insurer because the cover is not cancelled.

Don't know why Admiral cancel the policy and provide no cover. Under the terms of statutory third party cover they have the right to recover the costs under S.148

One day all of this might become clear.
 
Looks like LV (my insurer) now have a specific alcohol and drugs exclusion clause. Maybe in the last year or so.



It doesn't state that they'll cancel the policy and provide no cover, unlike Admiral.
It does say they'll recover from 'you, or the driver'. The RTA does allow this, if you have given permission for the driver to drive the vehicle.
That's irrespective of the exclusion clause as far as I can understand it.

They'll presumably be the contractual insurer or at least the RTA insurer because the cover is not cancelled.

Don't know why Admiral cancel the policy and provide no cover. Under the terms of statutory third party cover they have the right to recover the costs under S.148

One day all of this might become clear.
I was involved in rta 3 years ago with a drink driver. Myself and others were seriously injured, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to dangerous driving.
My understanding is a fully comp policy effectively downgrades to 3rd party only thus not covering driver for injuries and car.
From my point of view I was relieved to find out that by law the insurance companies have to settle for injuries then claim back from the driver as their underwriters won't pay the claim.
I maybe biased when living with pain everyday in thinking you don't drink and drive without consequences.
 
I was involved in rta 3 years ago with a drink driver. Myself and others were seriously injured, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to dangerous driving.
My understanding is a fully comp policy effectively downgrades to 3rd party only thus not covering driver for injuries and car.
From my point of view I was relieved to find out that by law the insurance companies have to settle for injuries then claim back from the driver as their underwriters won't pay the claim.
I maybe biased when living with pain everyday in thinking you don't drink and drive without consequences.

You're right.
It is enshrined in law that the injured victims in an RTC will get compensation, either through the insured parties or if there is no insurance through the MIB. That's absolutely right. Likewise for damage to property and costs related to the claim. Also in that law is the right to recover from the driver, or others named on the policy.

I'm not disputing the right of injured parties to be compensated, other than the need to root out fake soft tissue (whiplash) related claims.
I'm trying to unravel how the insurers apply the law and how they deal with the claim. As a victim you don't care how you get the compensation you are entitled to. When faced with a demand for a huge amount of money I want to know how and why.

In my son's case a twice written off £1500 car used as a minicab resulted in a £23k claim. He was stupid enough to drink and drive but I'm not stupid enough to let him agree to hand over £23k without question.

Drink driving related accidents have been falling for years and account for around 5% of RTCs involving fatalities and injuries.
Therefore the other 95% are still the result of someone being at fault. They rarely happen by 'accident'.

The stats are HERE
 
You're right.
It is enshrined in law that the injured victims in an RTC will get compensation, either through the insured parties or if there is no insurance through the MIB. That's absolutely right. Likewise for damage to property and costs related to the claim. Also in that law is the right to recover from the driver, or others named on the policy.

I'm not disputing the right of injured parties to be compensated, other than the need to root out fake soft tissue (whiplash) related claims.
I'm trying to unravel how the insurers apply the law and how they deal with the claim. As a victim you don't care how you get the compensation you are entitled to. When faced with a demand for a huge amount of money I want to know how and why.

In my son's case a twice written off £1500 car used as a minicab resulted in a £23k claim. He was stupid enough to drink and drive but I'm not stupid enough to let him agree to hand over £23k without question.

Drink driving related accidents have been falling for years and account for around 5% of RTCs involving fatalities and injuries.
Therefore the other 95% are still the result of someone being at fault. They rarely happen by 'accident'.

The stats are HERE
I think the basis of the law is that you were driving illegally, therefore the Insurance Company have a right to seek to recover their costs from you.

However, they need to prove they have acted in your best interests as well and not simply paid all claims without challenge.

I think you are doing the right thing.
 
I've mentioned on here several times that it might be worth raising a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
The outcomes of these complaints are available to view on the FOS website. You can search HERE

The FOS invariably support Admiral in their D&D exclusion clause and in nearly all cases the way Admiral settle the claim. Admiral and the FOS believe the claims are managed in a way that keep costs down and avoids you being taken to court by the third party.

In several cases Admiral continue pursuit despite no conviction. They also make up their own story of events even accusing people of fraud. They often talk about the 'balance of probability' vs 'beyond reasonable doubt', i.e. civil vs criminal burden of proof.

A common theme running through all cases is the ineptness and poor communication of the Admiral case handlers. Many resulting in voluntary or directed offers of compensation - anything from £50 to £250.

The FOS (investigators and Ombudsmen) seem to have little or no understanding of the RTA and uninsured driver processes, barring one specific case which I believe led to changes in the Admiral D&D exclusion clause.

Deciding whether you raise a complaint with the FOS is down to the individual circumstances and I wouldn't raise your hopes of the FOS overturning Admiral's pursuit for settlement of the claim. Keep a record of all the communication with Admiral. Challenge any unfair treatment and ask to be kept informed. Be precise about the grounds for complaint and include the evidence to support your argument.

Below are the D&D exclusion related cases I found. I doubt it's exhaustive but it gives you an idea of how they deal with it. I only looked at Admiral with keywords 'alcohol' and 'drink driving'

Recently quoted in this thread– Ombudsman discusses the relevant insurer statuses RTA, MIB etc. First time this has been mentioned. Still leaves many questions unanswered but led me down another 'interesting' rabbit hole in the motor insurance warren.
Decision Reference DRN-2348509 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Exaggerated claims paid by Admiral. Obvious not all the damage happened in the accident. Ombudsman agreed.
Decision Reference DRN3555897 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Over limit but no prosecution. Good enough for Admiral though. £100 for poor handling of the case.
Decision Reference DRN8803675 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Blew 39mg, not prosecuted but above the prescribed limit.
Decision Reference DRN6091479 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Admiral excluded, based on balance of probability. Not convicted in court due to technicality.
Decision Reference DRN-2608164 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Complainant not kept up to date – Admiral admitted this and offered £250.
Claim increased from £3k to £16k mostly due to PI costs.
Decision Reference DRN-2938759 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Complaint about not being kept up to date. Admiral claim to have interrogated the TP claims.
Decision Reference DRN-2760463 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Complaint about the wording of the exclusion clause not having ‘or drugs’. This goes back to 2017 where the clauses were changed.
Decision Reference DRN-2881208 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Complaint about the way Admiral dealt with the claim – applied pressure. Car should have been written off. Accident happened 1st day of policy no time to read the T&Cs.
Decision Reference DRN-3139550 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Interesting story of Admiral unfairly avoiding the policy and accusing people of fraud. Ombudsman directed Admiral to refund the claim and pay compensation.
Decision Reference DRN-2825987 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Admiral accused driver of fraud and claimed driver had crashed car whilst under influence of alcohol. No other cars or damage but they didn’t pay out. Overturned by ombudsman.
Decision Reference DRN-3225787 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

And for completeness here is my FOS case - Depressed Dad FoS case
Partially upheld on the basis that no cover was provided by the policy so I successfully argued that they can't register a claim against me and affect my NCD.

Hi all,

Thank you for all your excellent contributions over the years.

I was a named driver, and was involved in a road traffic accident whilst under the influence of alcohol.

I’ve negotiated a reduced settlement sum with Admiral. However, due to the sum being reduced, Admiral are not willing to reissue the policyholder’s No Claims Bonus points.

From the FOS decision posted by Depressed Dad, it would appear that in my case the policyholder ought to have their No Claims Bonus points reissued regardless of whether a settlement has been paid or not. Is this correct?

Further, I (named driver) also happened to be a policyholder for another vehicle. I've accrued a fair few No Claims Bonus points over the years. Should I except any reduction in my number of No Claims Bonus points, and if so how many?

Thanks again everyone, your posts have been extremely helpful.
 
Hi all,

Thank you for all your excellent contributions over the years.

I was a named driver, and was involved in a road traffic accident whilst under the influence of alcohol.

I’ve negotiated a reduced settlement sum with Admiral. However, due to the sum being reduced, Admiral are not willing to reissue the policyholder’s No Claims Bonus points.

From the FOS decision posted by Depressed Dad, it would appear that in my case the policyholder ought to have their No Claims Bonus points reissued regardless of whether a settlement has been paid or not. Is this correct?

Further, I (named driver) also happened to be a policyholder for another vehicle. I've accrued a fair few No Claims Bonus points over the years. Should I except any reduction in my number of No Claims Bonus points, and if so how many?

Thanks again everyone, your posts have been extremely helpful.

The key thing is that they say no cover is provided. so how can there be a claim against the policy? That was my argument that succeeded at the FOS.

If they act as Article 75 Insurer they treat you as the MIB would - as an uninsured driver.

With my son's case they didn't cancel the policy. Did they cancel the policy in your case?

When you take out a policy they usually ask if you have had an accident (Yes), made a claim (No), had a policy cancelled (Yes?).
For the policyholder it's No, No, Yes?

Worth getting Admiral to explain it.
I moved to LV and they were very helpful getting my NCD reinstated and I also explained there no claim.

Best to talk to your respective insurers to make sure they understand. Last thing you want is having another policy cancelled because they don't have all the right facts. Plus I don't think your policyholder should be adversely affected, even if the policy was cancelled if you explain what has happened.
 
It's a bizarre, unfair clause. I wasn't aware of it.
That implies they can/will pursue any of the named drivers.

As I've said many times before, the named drivers don't read the Policy document and neither do most policyholders.

It's an unfair contract in my opinion. I advise people to steer well clear of Admiral Group and not be sucked in by the cheap policy.

Sounds like you are doing the right things.
The amount they ask for is always negotiable.
Quick update, from receiving the first email (no letter in the post), i decided to wait for the 28 days to expire. It has and have now received a more aggressive (easiest word to use) with a bank account details and demanding i send the money within 21 days.
I can easily see how people become stressed, anxious and quickly settled with these tactics.

I will wait 20 days before responding to this latest letter "asking them why i received this and what is it for?".
 
The key thing is that they say no cover is provided. so how can there be a claim against the policy? That was my argument that succeeded at the FOS.

If they act as Article 75 Insurer they treat you as the MIB would - as an uninsured driver.

With my son's case they didn't cancel the policy. Did they cancel the policy in your case?

When you take out a policy they usually ask if you have had an accident (Yes), made a claim (No), had a policy cancelled (Yes?).
For the policyholder it's No, No, Yes?

Worth getting Admiral to explain it.
I moved to LV and they were very helpful getting my NCD reinstated and I also explained there no claim.

Best to talk to your respective insurers to make sure they understand. Last thing you want is having another policy cancelled because they don't have all the right facts. Plus I don't think your policyholder should be adversely affected, even if the policy was cancelled if you explain what has happened.
Hi DD,

I was recently involved in a drink driving accident of which I was the cause.

I'm sorry but I've only read like 7 of the 27 pages of this forum so far. I just wanted to find out what happened to your son and the recouping of costs that admiral pursued against him. If you don't mind publishing the outcome on this forum or directing me to where you posted it.

I understand you successfully got your complaint upheld by the FOS that you shouldn't be affected by your son's accident, but I couldn't find out the aftermath of his situation.

IAI
 
Hi DD,

I was recently involved in a drink driving accident of which I was the cause.

I'm sorry but I've only read like 7 of the 27 pages of this forum so far. I just wanted to find out what happened to your son and the recouping of costs that admiral pursued against him. If you don't mind publishing the outcome on this forum or directing me to where you posted it.

I understand you successfully got your complaint upheld by the FOS that you shouldn't be affected by your son's accident, but I couldn't find out the aftermath of his situation.

IAI
After a few years of intermittent correspondence and negotiating the number down they went quiet.
My son didn't have a steady job and went travelling to Australia and NZ.
They probably realised he wasn't worth pursuing, or the case fell down the back of the filing cabinet.
It eventually went past the 6 year statute of limitation.
 
Read though a lot of the posts and some helpful information, wondering if any one can offer any advice or help who have gone through similar.
Involved in a RTI, blew a 41 roadside. I was taken to hospital so blood tests taken.
Independent analysis result is 74mg/100ml so below the limit. Solicitor has presented this to the police investigation and advised they may use my results as it saves time & money.
Currently Waiting on the police investigation & possible blood analysis, this can take up to 6 months.
My insurance is with admiral who are currently investigating and I am awaiting the outcome. As my blood alcohol limit was below the 80mg, I may not be charged with DD pending police results. I am hoping my policy will he be valid, however reading on here there seems to be variables. the roadside breath test is non-evidential in court so I assume they will have to consider the blood results.
Looking at a costly poor decision on my part to drive after having a drink if I am required to pay for car (write off) 3rd party damage and recovery costs + any legal costs.
Any one experienced similar?
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top