Admiral....

Convicted Driver Insurance

Alldaybreakfastin

Well-known member
Hi,

I’m just wondering if anyone who has had the pleasure of dealing with Admiral recently could tell me if my indemnity form is worded similarly?

I’m struggling to understand what this actually means, citizens advice were none the wiser and I’m really in quite a pickle!

I don’t understand why they need this form signed if I’ve already signed a contract with a clause in, or the implications if I don’t sign, or why the third party is getting involved?

Thank you
 

Attachments

  • 1732B673-150D-4E61-8D8C-2D35E90730A8.png
    1732B673-150D-4E61-8D8C-2D35E90730A8.png
    333.2 KB · Views: 20

price1367

TTC Group
I have advised Alldaybreakfastin about this in a pm, the question is aimed at others who have received an indemnity form to fill in to see if theirs was worded the same.
It sees to be a change in tactic where they are indicating that they will only pay the third party if the third party has sued the driver first and has been unable to reclaim their loss. I think that before they indicated (as the law says) they would meet the third party loss but then seek to recoup it from the driver (or policy holder)
Anyone who is / has been in this situation able to assist?
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
Definitely a change of tactic.
Puts the onus on the TP insurer to take you to court.
Easier for Admiral?
More pressure on the policyholder/driver.
Courts costs in a civil case can be awarded if the claim exceeds a certain threshold. That’ll bump the claim up.
 

Alldaybreakfastin

Well-known member
Definitely a change of tactic.
Puts the onus on the TP insurer to take you to court.
Easier for Admiral?
More pressure on the policyholder/driver.
Courts costs in a civil case can be awarded if the claim exceeds a certain threshold. That’ll bump the claim up.
But if I sign the indemnity my insurers will settle without passing to third party and then look to reimburse from me or are they stating that they’re just bypassing that straight away here?

I really want to avoid court ! I don’t know the value of the claim, worst case scenario a write off around 8k plus hire car charges, and whatever they decide they can add on.

I’ve no luck in finding specialist solicitors - will continue my search tomorrow 😞

Thanks for your advice
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
I haven't thought this through fully so these are just random thoughts.

I'm not sure this is any different to Admiral paying and pursuing you although probably more chance of the TP insurer taking you to court.

If Admiral step back and let the TP pursue you then you will have the same opportunity to challenge the costs. The insurer must try all avenues to reach a settlement before taking you to court. Therefore there's no risk of having to suddenly appear in court unaware of how much they want.

If it does go to court you will be able to ask the Insurer for all the details of the costs and justify them. If the judge decides they are unreasonable I'm pretty sure he can reduce them. Also if it's a write off this is where I would get the Insurer to disclose if the written off car was sold and how much for. I would then seek to have that figure knocked off the claim.

There's an FOS case where Admiral were criticised for stepping back from their role. I didn't understand it fully but I think it might shed some light and I think it's related to their change in tactics. I'm sure I mentioned it elsewhere. I will try to find it.

Having an unsettled CCJ against you is bad for your credit rating but you can still agree a payment plan based on your ability to pay.
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
OK, so this is the FOS case HERE

This is the reason why Admiral have changed their approach.

The FOS does not believe that Admiral should be the RTA insurer because they have withdrawn cover for the exclusion. They should be the MIB Article 75 insurer instead.

It also states that both the RTA and MIB obligations only apply in the event of the third party obtaining a judgment.
It's ever been mentioned in all the other Admiral DD cases.

Not sure what effect this has on T&Cs where Admiral state they will settle under RTA.
If Admiral can only settle if there is a judgment then I suspect that's why previous cases have never ended up in court.

It needs an expert eye to unpick to see if there is an angle on this and what the right course of action is.
 

Alldaybreakfastin

Well-known member
OK, so this is the FOS case HERE

This is the reason why Admiral have changed their approach.

The FOS does not believe that Admiral should be the RTA insurer because they have withdrawn cover for the exclusion. They should be the MIB Article 75 insurer instead.

It also states that both the RTA and MIB obligations only apply in the event of the third party obtaining a judgment.
It's ever been mentioned in all the other Admiral DD cases.

Not sure what effect this has on T&Cs where Admiral state they will settle under RTA.
If Admiral can only settle if there is a judgment then I suspect that's why previous cases have never ended up in court.

It needs an expert eye to unpick to see if there is an angle on this and what the right course of action is.
Thank you so much, gosh what a minefield. So this is all a new tactic?

It’s a bit confusing that in the terms of the policy it says it will settle third party claims only as under the RTA, then go on to say they could not do this by passing to TP.


So my options are;
1. Sign, Admiral handle and pay (I’m suspicious why they’d do that if they can get out of it - to inflate a claim and profit from it?)

2. Don’t sign and TP sign A&A and Admiral handle, but don’t keep me informed.

3. Don’t sign, third party ask for reimbursement before taking me to court?

And I’d have the opportunity in all 3 to defend the claim before court? Will I also have court costs if I go?

Compared to some claims I’ve seen on here I’m expecting this one to be reasonably small - apart from the hire car. Fancy car for a month it seems. 8k if a write off + ????

Considering the above I’m now considering signing, but I’m just so suspicious that there’s got to be a beneficial reason on their behalf that they will still ‘fight’ for me.

Could you explain why that if admiral can only settle if there’s a judgement (court judgenent I’m guessing), that’s why none have ended up in court?

Also, will the car be sat not getting fixed until I sign this?!

Thank you again, from a very stupid and terrified idiot!
 

Alldaybreakfastin

Well-known member
Yes I don’t intend to bin it.

Tried to contact solicitors in the area - none interested unless I’m wanting representation at court.

I’m genuinely at a loss as to what to do.
 

Depressed Dad

Well-known member
So as expected they have changed the Drink and Drugs exclusion clause in the policy documents, (from September 2020.)

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.

Far less clear consequences than the previous wording which was:

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.

The risk of signing is that it sounds like you give up the right to be involved in challenging the costs and end up contractually obliged to pay whatever sum Admiral agree to. Depends if you believe Admiral will do their very best for you.

The repeated threats about unsatisfied CCJs seems a bit hollow because Admiral have to pay it! Then they have to try to recoup it from you, perhaps through the courts again.

I think he TP insurer agreeing to the A&A just puts it back into the way they've always done it. It will still surely give you the right to challenge the costs. Same with the TP insurer trying to get the money from you directly.

The third party will almost certainly be using a claims management company and racking up costs that either insurer could perhaps mitigate but probably won't. For example the car credit hire costs will be inflated. Repair costs likely to be inflated. This is where the Claims Management company make their money.

If you accept that you are likely to end up paying the claim (let's call it £10k), whether in full or in instalments then you need to decide if you want to fight tooth and nail to reduce the figure or if you want the easiest route to ending the ordeal, irrespective of the final bill.
The third option is fighting them all the way and not pay anything.
 

price1367

TTC Group
Bin it ignore it
Please stop giving advice based on ignorance of the issues. The poster has 2 options... sign the form or return it with reasons why he hasnt. He is confused about what to do and your reply will be adding to his confusion.
If you think this is wrong, please give a sensible argument to justify your suggestion to “bin it ignore it” other than saying insurance companies are “crooks”
This is not true.
 

Alldaybreakfastin

Well-known member
So as expected they have changed the Drink and Drugs exclusion clause in the policy documents, (from September 2020.)



Far less clear consequences than the previous wording which was:



The risk of signing is that it sounds like you give up the right to be involved in challenging the costs and end up contractually obliged to pay whatever sum Admiral agree to. Depends if you believe Admiral will do their very best for you.

The repeated threats about unsatisfied CCJs seems a bit hollow because Admiral have to pay it! Then they have to try to recoup it from you, perhaps through the courts again.

I think he TP insurer agreeing to the A&A just puts it back into the way they've always done it. It will still surely give you the right to challenge the costs. Same with the TP insurer trying to get the money from you directly.

The third party will almost certainly be using a claims management company and racking up costs that either insurer could perhaps mitigate but probably won't. For example the car credit hire costs will be inflated. Repair costs likely to be inflated. This is where the Claims Management company make their money.

If you accept that you are likely to end up paying the claim (let's call it £10k), whether in full or in instalments then you need to decide if you want to fight tooth and nail to reduce the figure or if you want the easiest route to ending the ordeal, irrespective of the final bill.
The third option is fighting them all the way and not pay anything.
Oh dear.

I took out the initial policy in 2017 and just kept renewing it since, with a car change on 09/10/2020. Do they have to inform me of changes to their policy? Or is this change of wording not sufficient to warrant notification?

I would like to challenge costs because I don’t trust them whatsoever and I know the bill will be daft, and I find 10k+ for a bumper f’in daylight robbery. I have a mechanic friend who is willing to scrutinise the costs, I think he actually works in insurance repair so hopefully that’ll help because I’m clueless. I’m not just laying down and taking the first figure they put at me.

So if I write to them saying I’m reluctant to sign, what’s my reason?! Because I don’t want to commit to unlimited liability with no chance to defend?

Should they have made the policy wording change clear or is the onus of that on me to continually read policy documents? I actually did when I took it out years ago... thinking ‘I’ll never do that....’ More fool me eh.

I’m not sure life could get much worse right now!

Thanks again 😊
 

price1367

TTC Group
My suggestion is that you say you cannot sign a document that could potentially give you an unlimited liability. You want to see estimates first.
It would be reasonable to specify:
Is the vehicle to be written off? If so what is the value?
Have 3 estimates been supplied (or a minimum of 2)
If not written off, what steps with the insurance company take to ensure that only the damage from YOUR accident is being claimed for?
Is a hire care being provided, and if so, does it match, but not exceed the type of vehicle that has been damaged?
What is the daily cost and is there a limit on the number of days car hire being claimed?
Confirmation that there is no personal injury claim. (I seem to remember that you hit a parked car, but there have been cases of injuries mysteriously appearing over damage to an apparently unattended vehicle.....!)

If you have a friend who is a mechanic for a company that does insurance repairs, perhaps you could add that before any documents are signed, you want to have the vehicle independently inspected. If your friend works for an independent garage and can do the car at a much lower cost then the 3rd party may be content for that garage to carry out the repair.
Just thinking that If there is no injury, you could decide to not use the insurance company at all....?
 

Alldaybreakfastin

Well-known member
So as expected they have changed the Drink and Drugs exclusion clause in the policy documents, (from September 2020.)



Far less clear consequences than the previous wording which was:



The risk of signing is that it sounds like you give up the right to be involved in challenging the costs and end up contractually obliged to pay whatever sum Admiral agree to. Depends if you believe Admiral will do their very best for you.

The repeated threats about unsatisfied CCJs seems a bit hollow because Admiral have to pay it! Then they have to try to recoup it from you, perhaps through the courts again.

I think he TP insurer agreeing to the A&A just puts it back into the way they've always done it. It will still surely give you the right to challenge the costs. Same with the TP insurer trying to get the money from you directly.

The third party will almost certainly be using a claims management company and racking up costs that either insurer could perhaps mitigate but probably won't. For example the car credit hire costs will be inflated. Repair costs likely to be inflated. This is where the Claims Management company make their money.

If you accept that you are likely to end up paying the claim (let's call it £10k), whether in full or in instalments then you need to decide if you want to fight tooth and nail to reduce the figure or if you want the easiest route to ending the ordeal, irrespective of the final bill.
The third option is fighting them all the way and not pay anything.
Just to add, unlike yourself, I’m not sure I’ve much to rely on to end up timing out. It’s pretty cut and dry. Absolutely my fault, positive breath test, no passengers/medicals.. can’t see where they’ll go wrong apart from inflating things hugely.

I’m actually not massively opposed to paying up, I am a little frustrated the clause is there, especially because I didn’t intentionally D&D. I know intent is totally irrelevant, but I did believe I was safe. A college friend died as a result from DD, and I should have been more careful, I just clearly was ignorant as to how long alcohol stays in your system. I was surprised at my reading. Suppose it doesn’t help that I’m an incredibly slim female who doesn’t drink often, with a few health conditions to boot.

I also have no issue paying for damage that I’ve caused, my issue is it being probably about 5x what it should actually cost.

I know one day it’ll be over, but I can’t see a way forward right now. Not in a nice place.

As always, thank you to everyone offering support, advice & opinions. Big love
 

Alldaybreakfastin

Well-known member
My suggestion is that you say you cannot sign a document that could potentially give you an unlimited liability. You want to see estimates first.
It would be reasonable to specify:
Is the vehicle to be written off? If so what is the value?
Have 3 estimates been supplied (or a minimum of 2)
If not written off, what steps with the insurance company take to ensure that only the damage from YOUR accident is being claimed for?
Is a hire care being provided, and if so, does it match, but not exceed the type of vehicle that has been damaged?
What is the daily cost and is there a limit on the number of days car hire being claimed?
Confirmation that there is no personal injury claim. (I seem to remember that you hit a parked car, but there have been cases of injuries mysteriously appearing over damage to an apparently unattended vehicle.....!)

If you have a friend who is a mechanic for a company that does insurance repairs, perhaps you could add that before any documents are signed, you want to have the vehicle independently inspected. If your friend works for an independent garage and can do the car at a much lower cost then the 3rd party may be content for that garage to carry out the repair.
Just thinking that If there is no injury, you could decide to not use the insurance company at all....?
Ok thank you, will absolutely raise those points.

Yes, hit parked vehicle at approximately 15mph, maybe slower, automatic car but was only really just into 2nd. Looks like just bumper damage, friend said possibly a metal plate behind bumper but even with both of those it shouldn’t be a write off.

I did think of that initially, don’t think the owner of car would have gone for it so didn’t ask. But surely won’t the car be fixed by now? It’s just passed 1 month since the incident. I wish I’d asked now, but he was a very much by the books man, even went as far as citizens arresting me. I was of absolutely no further danger. I’d stopped and taken reg and was getting phone out to report before he even came out. I think he’d like me punished as hard as possible and would refuse lower settlement, even if that is still a possibility now.
 

Guygibson

Well-known member
Please stop giving advice based on ignorance of the issues. The poster has 2 options... sign the form or return it with reasons why he hasnt. He is confused about what to do and your reply will be adding to his confusion.
If you think this is wrong, please give a sensible argument to justify your suggestion to “bin it ignore it” other than saying insurance companies are “crooks”
This is not true.
My advice is spot on bin it they basically want you to pay the bill they HAD to pay to the 3rd party price1367 you advice is confusing and over the top why complicate matters 🙄
 

price1367

TTC Group
So add in: Is the vehicle still drivable? Has the vehicle already been repaired?
It doesn’t have to be ‘sign or else” you are entitled to ask for some idea of the commitment you would be making.
You wouldn’t sign a contract for a car you were buying if you were told: “we cant give you the full cost yet, because there may be extras added but we will advise you the final price after you have accepted the car.
 

price1367

TTC Group
No person with any amount of legal knowledge would advise a person to ignore paperwork where there are potential legal proceedings to follow. If it did end up in court, one of the tests for punitive damages is the test of ‘reasonableness’ in each parties conduct during the matter. That is why it is important that the poster responds. It is a matter for her as to how she responds.
The insurance company may have an obligation to pay (but the change in the policy wording could put that in doubt) but in any civil matter, if you cause a person or company a loss, they are entitled to sue for that loss. The fact that they have to pay out does not mean that they cannot seek to recover that loss from the person who caused the loss.
Their position is that by driving over the limit her insurance is void. It says so in the policy she accepted. Why should they be out of pocket for an uninsured loss when they can sue her to recover their loss?
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top