DVLA Coronavirus (COVID-19) update: DVLA are now processing paper applications, however these will take longer to process as the DVLA are working with reduced staff to meet social distancing requirements. If your application requires medical information or examinations there are likely to be delays also. Click here for more information.

Convicted Driver Insurance

Compare quotes from leading drink driver insurance specialists in the UK

Get Quotes

Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
There certainly would have been letters threatening the legal action before he got the court date but he didn't even read them, just discarded them. He is waiting for a call back from someone in the legal department to discuss a payment plan, they are looking just shy of 8k from him.
The car my son hit was worth no more than £1500. It was lightly damaged but written off. The car hire costs (of a far better car) were way more than the value of the damaged car. The injury claims were bogus and all the other costs, over £23k were inflated.

That gave me a far better position to challenge.

if you write off someones decent car and/or someone ends up seriously injured it’s difficult to avoid the need to pay something or to challenge costs in the court.
 

AJC37

Member
Interesting.
Did you negotiate a lower figure with them?
Did they make any moves or threats to take you to court?
No room for negotiation. They threatened to give my case to a solicitor and that it would go to court before I even set up the payment plan. They settled a fee with a car I had hit and paid out before showing me any evidence at all. I was told that I had to pay back every penny before 12 months was up or that it would go straight to court. I put it all on a 0% interest credit card to get them off my back in the end
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
No room for negotiation. They threatened to give my case to a solicitor and that it would go to court before I even set up the payment plan. They settled a fee with a car I had hit and paid out before showing me any evidence at all. I was told that I had to pay back every penny before 12 months was up or that it would go straight to court. I put it all on a 0% interest credit card to get them off my back in the end
Every case is different and people's risk appetite is different too so whatever feels right is OK for people who fall foul of this clause in the policy.

Admiral Group may also have changed their approach to this since my son's case and have maybe become more aggressive.

Debts can be collected in a number of ways, ultimately through winning a judgment in a civil court, then applying a number of ways to legally recover the money frim the debtor.

In most cases just the threat of going to court is enough to make people agree to pay. However, a creditor is not allowed to bully debtors into paying and there is a process to be followed to get someone into court. A judge will expect all other avenues to have been considered with court being the last option.
 

January

Well-known member
Every case is different and people's risk appetite is different too so whatever feels right is OK for people who fall foul of this clause in the policy.

Admiral Group may also have changed their approach to this since my son's case and have maybe become more aggressive.

Debts can be collected in a number of ways, ultimately through winning a judgment in a civil court, then applying a number of ways to legally recover the money frim the debtor.

In most cases just the threat of going to court is enough to make people agree to pay. However, a creditor is not allowed to bully debtors into paying and there is a process to be followed to get someone into court. A judge will expect all other avenues to have been considered with court being the last option.
Did your sons conviction impact on your house insurance if he lived at home ? Thank you
 

grice96

Well-known member
The legal department have rejected my friends proposed payment plans and are going ahead with their case in the small claims court. Seems they are taking a much more aggressive approach than when your son had his run in.

My conviction affected my house insurance January, £168 before conviction £254 the year after conviction with my conviction declared.
 

grice96

Well-known member
No. Never had to declare it, or even name him on our household insurance.
You should have had to declare it. Every home insurance I've ever bought (the past 6 years being AXA, Halifax, Santander & Aviva) has asked do you or anyone living at this address have any criminal convictions.
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
You should have had to declare it. Every home insurance I've ever bought (the past 6 years being AXA, Halifax, Santander & Aviva) has asked do you or anyone living at this address have any criminal convictions.
Never been asked that question for home insurance. Just if anyone has made claims in the past 5 years. Only law abiding people in the house now.
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
The legal department have rejected my friends proposed payment plans and are going ahead with their case in the small claims court. Seems they are taking a much more aggressive approach than when your son had his run in.

My conviction affected my house insurance January, £168 before conviction £254 the year after conviction with my conviction declared.
Time to get some legal advice unless he's going to pay up..

If they are unlikely to be allowed to claim costs it would be interesting to see how it goes. It would be the first one I have been aware of. I suspect the judge will look favourably on a payment plan having been offered and if it's a reasonable one then he might still expect Admiral to accept it rather than pursue it in court. Also depends on your mates ability to pay. Winning a judgment is the first step. Actually getting the money is a separate challenge. An unsettled CCJ on your record is not good.
 

price1367

TTC Group
Companies have 6 years to file a claim for a debt.
they tend to think: “banned from driving, lost their job, not worth pursuing them...... BUT in 4-5 years time everything back on track, now is the time to go for it....”
 
Wait to see if you are convicted of D&D first. Check the terms of your policy. The Admiral/Bell/Diamond/Elephant one says they only pursue you if you are convicted.

Did you have an accident? If so what damage was caused? Are there likely to be any personal injury claims? Have you reported the accident to you insurer?
Hi Depressed Dad,

I'm new to the forum (although I have been following this thread for a few years now). I won't bore everyone with my story just yet - but I would just like to ask, are you certain it's only if you are convicted of D&D that Admiral will seek to recover third party costs? If so, could you please direct me to where Admiral state this?

TIA
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
This is the wording in the current Admiral Motor Policy

11. Drink and drugs clause

If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 3 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is driving your car and:
- is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
- is driving whilst 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 provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Law. In those circumstances, we will recover from you or the driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgement, of any claim arising from the accident.
It doesn't say 'convicted' but as far as I know no one except the police will test your blood/alcohol levels.
It does say 'over the legal limit' so it's logical to assume if you're over the limit you'll be prosecuted. In the vast majority of cases it'll end in a conviction.
Driving whilst unfit is (as I understand it) used more commonly for drug related offences and presumably might not be a scientifically measurable level that's exceeded.

For them to pursue someone who hasn't been convicted of a DD offence would be a rarity I guess an open up a whole new can of worms.
I'd be interested to hear of any examples of someone being pursued by Admiral with there having been a conviction.
 
Okay, so I will give you some background on my situation –

I crashed into a taxi. Luckily there were no passengers in it, just the driver and no one was hurt (apart from whiplash of course).

I'd had a drink but it wasn’t excessive. I wasn’t aware of Admirals T&Cs relating to this at the time. I’ve learnt my lesson – never again.

The police were called to the scene and breathalysed me and I did not pass. I was then taken to the local police station to be tested again, where I did pass. This was all within the hour or two following the accident. They handed me my car keys back and sent me on my way. This indicated to me that, had my car been drivable, the police deemed me fit to drive it.

So in the following days I’ve been as honest as I can with Admiral as I begin the claims process. They tell me they need to wait for the police report to come through before any final decisions could be made. Had it been a small police force, this would take up to a month, however the police involved are a large force and I was told it could take 6 – 12 months for the police report to come through. Of course I wanted to do anything I could to get the process quickened, and this is where I feel I made my mistake.

I decided I would send Admiral my receipt showing my readings from the police station – the same readings which meant the police could not convict me of anything and to prove that I was not legally over the limit. But straight away, Admiral decided they would not be paying out for my claim and cancelled my policy.

Right or wrong, whatever it may be, I have avoided them since this decision was made so I’ve got no idea where the claim is at or if it’s been settled or what is going on.

My view is that if they didn’t pay out my part of the claim using the D&D clause as an excuse, then they will probably seek to recover the third party costs from me also?
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
Ah, yes that scenario makes sense. I should have thought of that.

When did it happen?

What reading did you blow at the roadside?

They cancelled the policy, did they say they are going to pursue you for the money? Do you know how much it is?

A quick search and it says these breathalysers are accurate to within 2% - 1.6mg variance at 80mg reading.

Admiral have set the bar higher than the law if they rely purely on the roadside reading.

Having a cancelled policy will make it difficult and/or much more expensive to get insurance.

You need to speak to a solicitor, ideally one that specialises in drink driving.

When it’s clearer what Admiral expect it’s worth taking this to the Financial Ombudsman.

I didn’t think I could dislike Admiral more than I do. This is so unfair.
 

price1367

TTC Group
WorryingWendy,
Good questions from DepressedDad.
I will add three more,
What were your readings at the police station?
Exactly how long after the accident do you say you provided the samples at the roadside and the station? You say an hour or two, but you need to be much more specific. There will be a time / date stamp on the breath test printout.
And were you in England and Wales or were you in Scotland when this happened?
 
Thanks for your responses.

Depressed Dad:

- The incident happened in 2016 (I'm wary of giving specifics as, like you, I feel uncomfortable that Admiral could be checking up on the thread)

- I cannot remember the reading at the roadside, however I am in the process of requesting the report from the police so I should have that information in due course.

- The cancelling of the policy may be incorrect information. Basically, my family are all under the multi car policy* which is sorted out by my Dad. I queried him about the cancelling of the policy (well, my policy - for some reason he has decided to stay with Admiral even after all this!) before writing this response, and though he said he wasn't 100% sure if it was him or Admiral, I do feel like it would make sense that he cancelled it as I no longer had a car to insure and I haven't since. I was left paying off the remainder of my car finance for a car I no longer had (it was too expensive to repair myself) and my gap insurance was invalidated because my car insurance weren't paying out. Also he does remember Admiral saying that he/I would not be refunded any money from the cancellation (we pay annually and had literally just renewed the previous month) which I guess if they had made the decision, would have been a given?

- * side note: I am unsure how the multi car policy works. My Dad is not in your situation, because I wasn't a named driver under him; I was my own Policyholder. Of course I am relieved this means my situation didn't affect him at all, but I do find it strange that you can have insurance completely in your name with excess limits and T&Cs agreed to, but agreed by someone who isn't actually the Policyholder - I'd never spoken to Admiral or signed anything myself (I am 18+).

- The last I heard, they were attempting to contact me to investigate the situation. I haven't heard from them since late 2017. Admittedly I threw my toys out of the pram from when they said they weren't going to pay out my claim - I thought to myself, why do you need information from me when you can just go by the police report. I felt they'd clearly made their mind up that I was at fault if they weren't paying the claim. I was young and dumb and now I'm too scared to get in touch for an update incase it spurs them on to pursue these costs.

You're right, it is unfair. Regardless of the situation, as you and others have said in previous posts, all crashes are due to somewhat negligent driving so why don't these same rules apply to driving whilst on a mobile phone or speeding which is still breaking the law with the potential to cause harm. And why don't other insurers apply the drinking clause to their policies, why is it just the Admiral group? I'm not condoning drink driving, but how is it fair that you're legally allowed to have one beer and still drive, but anyone who does that and is insured by Admiral could fall victim to this awful scenario.


price1367:

- My readings at the police station are as follows:
1583013854339.png

- A letter my passenger received in the following days from the police, states the incident was at 01:37 hrs, so actually, not even an hour had passed.

- I was in England when this happened.


Many thanks
 

price1367

TTC Group
Right, so your problem is that you WERE over the limit which is 35, but BELOW the guideline threshold for prosecution which starts at 40.
You handed them proof that you were over the limit. the fact that the guidelines for the police say to not prosecute, there is nothing to stop them proceeding with a reading of 36 if they wanted to.
It is like you being caught driving at 32mph in a 30. You would probably not be prosecuted because the guidelines are 10% plus 2, but you are still over the 30 limit.
Both scenarios carry the discretion to not prosecute but it does not mean there has been no offence committed.......
There is also the time factor that they will have considered. If the accident was just an hour earlier, let alone the 2 hours you said were possible, your reading would have been above the threshold for prosecution. If the accident had involved serious injury the police could have performed a “back calculation” and prosecuted you on that.
You say the accident was at 1.37am... I very much doubt that you would have had the police attend, breath great you, take you to the police station, book you in and then do the breath test questionnaire (that alone takes several minutes) and then get the breath test Machine up and running in 16 minutes total time elapsed!
 
I was definitely naive to this. I thought the drink driving limit was the threshold and was relieved when they told me they went by the lowest reading.

I knew soon after sending that receipt was a mistake but I guess they probably would have obtained the information via the police report eventually anyway.

Not looking good! But thank you for your help

Convicted Driver Insurance

Compare quotes from leading drink driver insurance specialists in the UK

Get Quotes
 
Top