Forum Moderator
Staff member
Multiple posts have been removed from this thread as they are off topic and bring nothing of value either to this thread or the forum as a whole. Please keep all posts on topic.
Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy
- Thread starter Depressed Dad
- Start date
Depressed Dad
Established Member
Yes my son was a named driver.
They didn’t come after me. I don’t recall they ever suggested it.
What I successfully did was challenge through the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that no claim was actually made on my policy, ensuring my no claims bonus was not affected.
Struggled to get them to remove all records but my new insurer LV were very helpful and understanding. I had explain it all to them.
CPWP
Member
Thanks DD, my son has received a one line letter from Personal Injury Lawyer saying that proceedings were issued today in XYZ County Court and this notice is given for the purposes of s151 of the RTA. I believe Admiral are aware but does that suggest Admiral are contesting the claim do you think or is this standard practise. Like you my son does not have any assets or even a regular job and I have since retired so not sure how this will pan out. Our policy was also void after the accident and we paid our car write off costs so there are no claims against it.
Depressed Dad
Established Member
As far as I know Admiral have to pay all the third party claims and entitled to contest them is they want to keep the costs down. Sounds like Admiral are disputing the claim.
I would make sure Admiral are aware of this and confirm they are dealing with it.
Doesn’t sound like your son is being taken to court if the letter is from the personal injury lawyer.
Don’t ignore any letters from the court!
CPWP
Member
CPWP
Member
Thanks again DD, one thing I have checked is the vehicle that was supposedly written off in the incident has an MOT and Tax record since before and after the accident and is still taxed and MOT'd now. I have double checked the mileage levels year by year as you get that information on the DVLC site and it must have been driven since the crash. We shall see what turns up. The CPS notes state that only 'slight' injuries were received and no-one required any medical attention at the scene. So a whiplash and possible soft tissue damage claim. Bracing myself for a drawn out dispute as we have no choice.
Depressed Dad
Established Member
Good detective work and useful ammunition when challenging any claims Admiral might throw your son’s way.
I think I did an HPI check to find out out the car my son hit had been written off twice before. It was being used as a minicab.
Entitled to be on the road but it reduces the value of the vehicle. It was just another thing that Admiral hadn’t bothered to check.
Good luck.
Jkeel1
New Member
Hi DD admiral have advised they did offer a pre medical settlement to one of the claimants, what do you suggest to challenge this back?
Depressed Dad
Established Member
Same for my son. I just made the point that they made no attempt at independent medicals and paid up without question. That is not Admiral working in the best interest of your son by challenging all aspects of the claim on his behalf. They will argue it’s cheaper to pay up. I argued against that.
Depressed Dad
Established Member
They want the premiums and go in cheap. The problem is the small print and how they treat you when you have an accident. If you have a no-fault accident they let the claims management company deal with the the claim which invariably gets inflated for multiple reasons.
Same when someone claims against your Admiral policy if it’s your fault , it’s all inflated costs with very little challenge. No one cares when the insurer pays out but when you are expected to pay it yourself you realise how badly it is managed.
Jkeel1
New Member
Thanks for your reply, I’ve also asked for pictures of the photos of the damage to the TP car but they haven’t sent them, would you just keep chasing this?
Depressed Dad
Established Member
Yep, pull them up on everything. I asked for the photos, they were not fit for purpose. You couldn't see what the damage was.
Admiral don't bother sending an engineer to check the damage for themselves they just rely on the third party claims management company whose job is to maximise all aspects of the claim. Ask them for their own engineers report, any police reports, evidence of the number of passengers, their medical reports, etc, etc. Unless they've upped their game it'll full of holes.
They may have had a hire car supplied by the claims management company. They are always inflated costs and they shouldn't keep the car any longer than necessary and needs to be a like for like temporary replacement.
I think I put all of this in the earlier parts of this thread which is now rather long. I can't remember all of it!
Still haven't come across a case that ended up in court. I'd be interested to here from anyone where proceedings were started, even a 'letter before action'.
Admiral don't bother sending an engineer to check the damage for themselves they just rely on the third party claims management company whose job is to maximise all aspects of the claim. Ask them for their own engineers report, any police reports, evidence of the number of passengers, their medical reports, etc, etc. Unless they've upped their game it'll full of holes.
They may have had a hire car supplied by the claims management company. They are always inflated costs and they shouldn't keep the car any longer than necessary and needs to be a like for like temporary replacement.
I think I put all of this in the earlier parts of this thread which is now rather long. I can't remember all of it!
Still haven't come across a case that ended up in court. I'd be interested to here from anyone where proceedings were started, even a 'letter before action'.
Jkeel1
New Member
Yes thank you for all your help, I have read your earlier posts & if I hadn’t come across them I probably wouldn’t have even challenged them on anything. I have challenged a few things & they have responded to me with some rather vague answers which I now need to reply too. My final bill is approx £11k - I have come to the conclusion I will need to set up some sort or repayment agreement although there is no way the claimants even had whiplash which is the most frustrating part !
Depressed Dad
Established Member
I always took time with my replies and kept the dialogue running for as long as I could drag it out. They were very inefficient with long periods of waiting. My case with the FOS took up a lot of time. In the end Admiral just stopped the pursuit. I have no idea if it was an admin error or there were much easier people to pursue.
They voluntarily dropped the amount they were asking for a couple of times so keep challenging and I'm sure that £11k will reduce considerably.
I am pretty sure they do the least amount of work they can to extract something but seem to stop short of taking people to court. I think it could be cost as well as bad publicity and exposing their lazy way of dealing with Claims Management companies.
I still don't know why other insurers have chosen not to pursue for the TP costs in drink driving cases. It seems unique to the Admiral group. It all revolves around EU court ruling.
They voluntarily dropped the amount they were asking for a couple of times so keep challenging and I'm sure that £11k will reduce considerably.
I am pretty sure they do the least amount of work they can to extract something but seem to stop short of taking people to court. I think it could be cost as well as bad publicity and exposing their lazy way of dealing with Claims Management companies.
I still don't know why other insurers have chosen not to pursue for the TP costs in drink driving cases. It seems unique to the Admiral group. It all revolves around EU court ruling.
Depressed Dad
Established Member
Just refreshed my memory.
Admiral drink driving clause does say they will recover from 'you or the driver'
15. 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.
Admiral drink driving clause does say they will recover from 'you or the driver'
15. 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.
CPWP
Member
Hi DD, I guess the question is (a) Are they required by law to settle the Third Party claims - Answer YES they can't simply walk away and then (b) Can they legally pass these costs onto the driver and or policy holder - Answer YES if they have a clause in their policy that states that then (c) Can they simply pass on any costs they want to - completely unlimited - to the driver/policy holder - I doubt it and (d) if they have a policy to pass on costs are they legally obliged to have acted in good faith to minimise these costs to their customer - I suspect they do otherwise for all of these cases they would/could simply pass the problem straight to a debt collection agency as soon as the conviction happens and wash their hands of it. Why otherwise go through the process in the first place. If they are obliged to minimise these costs then they must comply with all requests for scrutiny and challenge? At what point do they hand this over to a debt collection company? and does that resolve them of any responsibility from that date? Were you dealing with 'Admiral' or a 3rd party? When you take out an Admiral policy over the phone they do not mention this clause. Then they send you 4 documents over e-mail none of which has this clause in it. They rely on you reading through a separate 40 page policy document. Given they are the only insurance company that has this clause then they should include it in those 4 documents and highlight it over the phone as a key difference in their policy. There is a case for hidden misrepresentation here especially as they heavily market multi-vehicle insurance - it is virtually impossible to insure younger drivers full except via Admiral - the reason why is simple - Admiral recover these costs whereas other insurance companies don't so their premiums are higher and unattractive. Admiral need to make this much clearer as I think most parents would not sign up to this clause and would simply tell their offsprings to wait till they are 25! - Time to call this out. And before the trolls turn up its not disimilar to the people who have been flooded recently. Some of them didn't read the 'no floods' clause and are not covered!
Last edited:
CPWP
Member
Started looking at recent Forums with parents trying to get insurance for their sons and daughters - see below - I am going to cut and paste the admiral policy on these sites so that they know what the risk is and that they could be liable to bankrupcy via Admiral. I am not condoning drink driving but Admiral should make this policy highly visible and wthin the main documents. The reasn they are cheaper is because of this and probably other clauses
CPWP
Member
Above is what journalists are writing and they are recommending Admiral. That's fine. Yes they are the cheapest. But they are not identifying the risks i.e. if you don't 100% trst your son/daughter not to do something stupid like drink driving then YOU can be pursued for the debt and we have cases of this being hundreds of thousands of pounds and bankruptcy so if you are not 100% certain then either (a) pay more with another provider or (b) they will have to wait till they are older. I am going to campaign this wth relevant journalists and use whatever case studies people want to share.
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
![]()
