Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy

[Depressed Dad]

How exactly have folks managed to get Admiral to agree to a lower amount? I have 6 documents they've sent to explain the costs they are charging me, and zero experience in dealing with this sort of thing. Also a poor student so no legal for me lol

I just don't understand how folks have gotten from "we want £15k from you" to "we'll settle for £8k". Anyone want to look at these docs with me

I think you need to give us an idea of what the claim is made up of.

Did the third party use a claims management company or did Admiral deal with it directly?
Claims management companies take a cut and are more expensive.

Typically there's damage the third party property or vehicle.
Repair costs are often inflated when they go through an insurance claim and cheaper if you go to your local car repairer and pay them directly. Does the claim for repairs look inflated? You might have to ask a friendly car repairer or mechanic if it looks fair or not.

How long was the damaged car off the road awaiting repair?

Was the third party given a hire car under a credit hire agreement? They charge exorbitant fees. The car must be a like for like car for a reasonable amount of time . Not a new Merc to replace an old Mini, for example.

There may be personal injury claims. Some will be obvious and quite severe.
Others are bogus soft tissue injuries that get paid without question.

It's a case of judging if the figures look fair and if there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. Admiral typically don't invest any time and effort to validate the claims using their own engineers or medics.

In addition to challenging the costs in the claim you can also play the impoverished student card. If you persuade them you're skint for the foreseeable future then they might reduce the amount.

I challenged pretty much everything.
I found out the vehicle had been written off twice before. Car hire too long. Not equivalent model. Admiral offered pre-medical settlements for whiplash. No police report or evidence of number of passengers. Meaningless photos of damage. Breaking data privacy rules.
My son had no job and then went travelling in Aus and NZ.
They reduced the amount in stages from £23k to £9k and eventually timed out.

 

[Hardluck]

I think you need to give us an idea of what the claim is made up of.

Did the third party use a claims management company or did Admiral deal with it directly?
Claims management companies take a cut and are more expensive.

Typically there's damage the third party property or vehicle.
Repair costs are often inflated when they go through an insurance claim and cheaper if you go to your local car repairer and pay them directly. Does the claim for repairs look inflated? You might have to ask a friendly car repairer or mechanic if it looks fair or not.

How long was the damaged car off the road awaiting repair?

Was the third party given a hire car under a credit hire agreement? They charge exorbitant fees. The car must be a like for like car for a reasonable amount of time . Not a new Merc to replace an old Mini, for example.

There may be personal injury claims. Some will be obvious and quite severe.
Others are bogus soft tissue injuries that get paid without question.

It's a case of judging if the figures look fair and if there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. Admiral typically don't invest any time and effort to validate the claims using their own engineers or medics.

In addition to challenging the costs in the claim you can also play the impoverished student card. If you persuade them you're skint for the foreseeable future then they might reduce the amount.

I challenged pretty much everything.
I found out the vehicle had been written off twice before. Car hire too long. Not equivalent model. Admiral offered pre-medical settlements for whiplash. No police report or evidence of number of passengers. Meaningless photos of damage. Breaking data privacy rules.
My son had no job and then went travelling in Aus and NZ.
They reduced the amount in stages from £23k to £9k and eventually timed out.

I may have to DM you replies to your points there tomorrow if that's okay, bit wary of dumping so much info on a public forum. There were zero injuries or people present and no PI claims though, which is something.

Thank you for this list too, I shall use it tomorrow as I extract info.

 

[Luna2000]

I may have to DM you replies to your points there tomorrow if that's okay, bit wary of dumping so much info on a public forum. There were zero injuries or people present and no PI claims though, which is something.

Thank you for this list too, I shall use it tomorrow as I extract info.

Take on board what Depressed Dad (Come, on Dad, you must be feeling a wee bit better by now. How about Happy Dad?)

My car had its wing mirror damaged. Other party admitted responsibility but my own car was away for 3 weeks to have a 2 hour repair carried out and I was given a hired car.

Now in the past, I would have taken this to an insurer approved garage, they'd order the part, call me when it was in and I'd take my car to them for a couple of hours to have it replaced.

But with the management company involved, the other party is now having to fork out around £2k for a 3 week hire car.

Madness.

 

[Hardluck]

I'll plop this here at least whilst I'm at work. Trying to go over all the docs when I can. But with my limited knowledge, I don't know if these values are indeed that inflated/unfair:

TP loss - £8930 (garage claimed a write-off)
Credit hire - £3376 (bastards tried their luck for 80 days hire WAY more, Admiral actually told them to sod off and gave 30)
TP storage/recovery- £624
TP solicitors- £100
Court fee- £1360
Admiral's solicitors- £1111.2

I don't know if I can really argue anything from TP storage downwards, but the top two sting even if I'm not sure if they're actually that unrealistic. Luna has it right, I think I'm just being taken for a ride on credit hire cos they purposely do things in the most expensive way possible.

 

[Luna2000]

I'll plop this here at least whilst I'm at work. Trying to go over all the docs when I can. But with my limited knowledge, I don't know if these values are indeed that inflated/unfair:

TP loss - £8930 (garage claimed a write-off)
Credit hire - £3376 (bastards tried their luck for 80 days hire WAY more, Admiral actually told them to sod off and gave 30)
TP storage/recovery- £624
TP solicitors- £100
Court fee- £1360
Admiral's solicitors- £1111.2

I don't know if I can really argue anything from TP storage downwards, but the top two sting even if I'm not sure if they're actually that unrealistic. Luna has it right, I think I'm just being taken for a ride on credit hire cos they purposely do things in the most expensive way possible.

It's difficult to argue against a writ-off, as you have no idea whether the chassis has been compromised or not.

I'm assuming car hire is what you mean by credit hire. First off, check what the TP had in their policy. If it included a hire car for X days, then that's what you should cover. If they had opted not to include a hire car in the event of an accident, then I'd tell them to bugger off as that was a decision they made and why should you have to pay for something they weren't willing to pay a premium for themselves? Might get away with it.

And what is TP storage all about? The car will simply sit in a compound somewhere and you could argue that the compound owners have to prove actual loss and expense to them of having a write-off simply sitting there.

Plus why was there a court case? Who took who to court and why?

You also need to get Admiral to PROVE they did everything they possibly could to mitigate costs to them and eventually you.

Just keep asking questions and seeking clarification until it comes to a point where you either accept what they are saying or get your won solicitor.

 

[Hardluck]

It's difficult to argue against a writ-off, as you have no idea whether the chassis has been compromised or not.

I'm assuming car hire is what you mean by credit hire. First off, check what the TP had in their policy. If it included a hire car for X days, then that's what you should cover. If they had opted not to include a hire car in the event of an accident, then I'd tell them to bugger off as that was a decision they made and why should you have to pay for something they weren't willing to pay a premium for themselves? Might get away with it.

And what is TP storage all about? The car will simply sit in a compound somewhere and you could argue that the compound owners have to prove actual loss and expense to them of having a write-off simply sitting there.

Plus why was there a court case? Who took who to court and why?

You also need to get Admiral to PROVE they did everything they possibly could to mitigate costs to them and eventually you.

Just keep asking questions and seeking clarification until it comes to a point where you either accept what they are saying or get your won solicitor.

I have docs with detail, added to you to the conversation to save a lot of typing lol
I'm not sure I have anything telling me who the TP insurer was. I can out this question to Admiral.

Storage was as the claimant apparently had no capacity to safely store the vehicle- I will put this to them too.

I've asked about this court stuff before and had no reply, I'll push them again on it.

Thank you!

 

[Depressed Dad]

What is the year, make and model of the car?
What category write off is it? If it was repairable the Admiral have probably sold it on. They should take that off the total.
What make/model of hire car did they get?
Why did it take a month to settle the claim?

 

[Hardluck]

What is the year, make and model of the car?
What category write off is it? If it was repairable the Admiral have probably sold it on. They should take that off the total.
What make/model of hire car did they get?
Why did it take a month to settle the claim?

I'm not sure if Admiral dealt with it directly or a third party did. The paperwork includes Horwich Farrelly Ltd (Admiral?), JPMorriss as independent engineers, Winn Solicitors (them?), OnHire Ltd and OneCall Rescue.

I've shared with you some images of the paperwork in a conversation.

Thanks again.

 

[Depressed Dad]

Admiral will have appointed a solicitor to act for them, or did you have your own?

Surely an E class AMG for a 6 year old 520D is a joke.
If I understand it correctly the AMG is a 400+ BHP sports model.
That might explain part of the reason the hire costs were reduced but that seemed to be based on time rather than make/model of the replacement.
He didn't show his credit card statement because it would prove he didn't need credit hire! If you can afford to hire a car yourself then you should.
Had he paid out himself he'd have hired a Ford Focus!

 

[Hardluck]

Admiral will have appointed a solicitor to act for them, or did you have your own?

Surely an E class AMG for a 6 year old 520D is a joke.
If I understand it correctly the AMG is a 400+ BHP sports model.
That might explain part of the reason the hire costs were reduced but that seemed to be based on time rather than make/model of the replacement.
He didn't show his credit card statement because it would prove he didn't need credit hire! If you can afford to hire a car yourself then you should.
Had he paid out himself he'd have hired a Ford Focus!

I have zero doubt that he aimed to be a big a pr*ck as possible about it and charge as much as he could. The two cars have the same engine size I guess according to the paperwork? I'll try to argue that but I don't know if there'll be much success.

Unfortunately Admiral didnt include me in the discussions at all, first I heard about it was at the indemnity letter. So they will have hired Horwich Farrelly (who at least seemed to do a good job I guess).

 

[Lee05]

Not sure if this will help anyone from Scotland if your insurance company are asking you to make a request for information. This is taken from the Police Scotland Subject Access Request Form;

"Please be aware that it is a criminal offence for someone to require you to make a subject
access request - for example for your conviction history - in connection with:

- your recruitment or continued employment;

- any contract with you for the provision of services, e.g. as a self-employed person; or

- you being provided with goods, facilities or services, e.g. by an insurance provider"

 

[Luna2000]

Not sure if this will help anyone from Scotland if your insurance company are asking you to make a request for information. This is taken from the Police Scotland Subject Access Request Form;

"Please be aware that it is a criminal offence for someone to require you to make a subject
access request - for example for your conviction history - in connection with:

- your recruitment or continued employment;

- any contract with you for the provision of services, e.g. as a self-employed person; or

- you being provided with goods, facilities or services, e.g. by an insurance provider"

Not sure what you are trying to tell people with this Lee05.

It seems that a 'Criminal Access Request.' is what I would call a Disclosure. In scotland, you can either pay to get this youirself, or if your prospective employer requires it and is paying for it, complete and sign the form and they will obtain it for you.

Nearly every job in Local and Central Government will require you to obtain a Disclosure or a PVG Certificate detailing your convictions.

 

[TLONG123]

Hi All,

On September 25th of last year I made the fatal error of drink driving, I blew a stupidly high 93 and have regretted it every day since. I lost my license for 24 months reduced to 18 and had to serve a 75 day alcohol free period that was monitored by a tag system. Im coming up on 5 months down the line on the court date. I got into a crash with a council bollard and ended up with the front end of my car in a building, the building suffered minor damage and had a split wooden beam at the front. The building was very old and listed and I was aware that admiral may come to re claim damage from me. I informed them of the accident at the time and told them I was over the limit and would likely lose my license. I then cancelled my policy and admiral got back to me to inform me they were withholding the amount I had paid for insurance (£658) until the claim was settled. I assumed this money was gone and that one day in the future they would send me an indemnity form and come knocking. Today I received an email confirming they were refunding me the full 658 and that the claim was settled. I then received an email 25 minutes later confirming my no claims bonus which I still have and that they had paid out £0 in the claim and that the claim type was AD (accidental damage). It also states that the claim type was Non-Fault. Can anybody give me any advice if they've been in a similar situation? Have admiral now accepted that they can't reclaim any money from me? Im very confused by the situation and assumed that eventually I would have to pay out for damage caused. Maybe they can sue me directly? Not sure how they would be able to do this though as they would have to claim from admiral first who would be forced to pay out under the RTA for 3rd party damages. Any advice would be great!

 

[Rob988]

Hi all,

I’ve been lurking on this forum for some time now as I was involved in a minor RTC whilst allegedly over the limit around 1 year ago. This has been an excellent source of information and reassurance for myself and I’m sure for many more.

However, I’ve encountered an issue which I’m hoping for further wisdom on. I received the dreaded consent and indemnity form a couple months after the incident which I returned on the basis that they claim to streamline the process and represent your interests (which we know isn’t always the case).

With advice from this forum I felt comfortable allowing the process to happen in the background and challenging EUI on the inevitably inflated costs when they came knocking for recovery.

However I have today received a citation from the all-Scotland personal injury court naming me as the defendant in the case and stating that I am being pursued for the sum of £26k in relation to the incident.

Given that it was minor in nature (superficial damage, no clear injuries) this number is clearly inflated but what I’m most concerned with is why EUI (Admiral) have not settled this claim themselves as they are obliged to do under the Road Traffic Act?

Like I say, I had no issue coming to an agreement with them when all was said and done but if I’m now subject to court proceedings does this mean admiral have dropped me entirely despite my returning of the Consent and Indemnity and them being mandated to settle the claim by the Road Traffic Act?

I should note I have not been found guilty of an offence as of yet although I know they operate on balance of probability.

Any advice on this is appreciated, I have made inquiries with solicitors already but hoping for some additional wisdom on here. I have also sent a stern email to the claims department demanding to know why this has happened despite me enabling them to act on my behalf and in line with the Road Traffic Act.

I’m also open to any questions anyone has for me. Thanks

 

[TLONG123]

Hi all,

I’ve been lurking on this forum for some time now as I was involved in a minor RTC whilst allegedly over the limit around 1 year ago. This has been an excellent source of information and reassurance for myself and I’m sure for many more.

However, I’ve encountered an issue which I’m hoping for further wisdom on. I received the dreaded consent and indemnity form a couple months after the incident which I returned on the basis that they claim to streamline the process and represent your interests (which we know isn’t always the case).

With advice from this forum I felt comfortable allowing the process to happen in the background and challenging EUI on the inevitably inflated costs when they came knocking for recovery.

However I have today received a citation from the all-Scotland personal injury court naming me as the defendant in the case and stating that I am being pursued for the sum of £26k in relation to the incident.

Given that it was minor in nature (superficial damage, no clear injuries) this number is clearly inflated but what I’m most concerned with is why EUI (Admiral) have not settled this claim themselves as they are obliged to do under the Road Traffic Act?

Like I say, I had no issue coming to an agreement with them when all was said and done but if I’m now subject to court proceedings does this mean admiral have dropped me entirely despite my returning of the Consent and Indemnity and them being mandated to settle the claim by the Road Traffic Act?

I should note I have not been found guilty of an offence as of yet although I know they operate on balance of probability.

Any advice on this is appreciated, I have made inquiries with solicitors already but hoping for some additional wisdom on here. I have also sent a stern email to the claims department demanding to know why this has happened despite me enabling them to act on my behalf and in line with the Road Traffic Act.

I’m also open to any questions anyone has for me. Thanks

Did admiral initially inform you that one day they would send the form and come to reclaim for damages or was there no contact? Other than then sending the indemnity form

 

[Rob988]

Did admiral initially inform you that one day they would send the form and come to reclaim for damages or was there no contact? Other than then sending the indemnity form

When I questioned the Indemnity form they suggested that they would seek to recover costs once the claim was resolved yes. However since my returning of the form (in august 2022) I’ve had radio silence.

I received a letter from DAC Beachcroft (corporate solicitors representing EUI from what I gather) notifying me of the same around a month ago, that EUI would not indemnify me however would pay out 3rd party costs as per the Road Traffic Act. Again they notified me that legislation would allow them to seek recovery at a later date.

I’m currently looking to get in touch with Admiral with regards to this to see what the crack is, it could be that I’m overreacting and they’ll take over proceedings to resolve the court action but I thought I’d ask on here to see if anyone had experienced anything similar.

 

[Rob988]

When I questioned the Indemnity form they suggested that they would seek to recover costs once the claim was resolved yes. However since my returning of the form (in august 2022) I’ve had radio silence.

I received a letter from DAC Beachcroft (corporate solicitors representing EUI from what I gather) notifying me of the same around a month ago, that EUI would not indemnify me however would pay out 3rd party costs as per the Road Traffic Act. Again they notified me that legislation would allow them to seek recovery at a later date.

I’m currently looking to get in touch with Admiral with regards to this to see what the crack is, it could be that I’m overreacting and they’ll take over proceedings to resolve the court action but I thought I’d ask on here to see if anyone had experienced anything similar.

Quick turn around in a response to this by Admiral, they are aware of it and will be representing me in order to settle the claim and will likely seek reimbursement in future however very strange that they were not mentioned in the citation and that the citation was served directly to me.

I’ll keep this forum updated as things progress up to the point of resolution, hopefully can be of some use to others.

 

[TLONG123]

Quick turn around in a response to this by Admiral, they are aware of it and will be representing me in order to settle the claim and will likely seek reimbursement in future however very strange that they were not mentioned in the citation and that the citation was served directly to me.

I’ll keep this forum updated as things progress up to the point of resolution, hopefully can be of some use to others.

Did you question admiral on the indemnity form straight after your accident or did you question them when it arrived? Were you aware that there was an active claim against your insurance policy?

 

[Rob988]

Did you question admiral on the indemnity form straight after your accident or did you question them when it arrived? Were you aware that there was an active claim against your insurance policy?

I questioned them upon its arrival, I asked why they required my signature of such a form given that they would be obliged under the RTA to pay out 3rd party costs regardless, the response was fairly lucid to be fair.

To summarise, whilst yes they would have to pay out either way, signing the indemnity allows them to head off the claim without it reaching stupid numbers (which in my case and the case of others on here it seems to have done regardless but you live and learn) and it also means you avoid running the risk of a CCJ (allegedly).

I was only made aware of the claim against my insurance upon issue of the indemnity form, I had half expected one to manifest as a result of the incident despite it’s relatively minor nature but I was only advised this by admiral formally at the point of indemnity form issue.

 

[TLONG123]

I questioned them upon its arrival, I asked why they required my signature of such a form given that they would be obliged under the RTA to pay out 3rd party costs regardless, the response was fairly lucid to be fair.

To summarise, whilst yes they would have to pay out either way, signing the indemnity allows them to head off the claim without it reaching stupid numbers (which in my case and the case of others on here it seems to have done regardless but you live and learn) and it also means you avoid running the risk of a CCJ (allegedly).

I was only made aware of the claim against my insurance upon issue of the indemnity form, I had half expected one to manifest as a result of the incident despite it’s relatively minor nature but I was only advised this by admiral formally at the point of indemnity form issue.

I see, i was only questioning as I’ve had similar situation 6 months ago now where I informed admiral of a potential claim against my insurance, But they got back to me saying that the claim had been settled and that they hadn’t paid out. I wonder if they had any contact with you whilst you were waiting for the indemnity form?