Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Glitch

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not surprised that Diamond are bottom but amazed their sister companies Admiral, Bell and Elephant don't get a mention. They are popular (cheap) companies with a combined sizeable market share. My past experience of Admiral put them low on the list and my recent insurers LV= and John Lewis justify their relatively high position.
  2. I haven't replied on his behalf yet but was planning to write to them. I planned to tell them he would not be around and also start to challenge the costs and reduce the potential debt.
  3. My son has received a letter from an insurer who is about to pursue him for £24,000 for a drink driving incident back in 2010. This is the background to the case http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?316662-Pursued-by-insurance-company-for-uninisured-losses Insurer is asking for income details with a view to agreeing repayment within 28 days, or court proceedings will start. Problem number 1 is that my son is in Australia and not due back until end of year possibly longer. He has no job to come back to and no assets to speak of. Problem number 2 is reducin
  4. When Admiral do the same for all the other negligent drivers (there is always someone at fault), like the ones who use their mobiles and cause more accidents than drunks then I'll be happy. BTW Admiral have the same exclusion clause about vehicle condition. A valid MOT is irrelevant. If your brakes, steering or suspension not roadworthy and "contribute to the accident" then they'll only settle under the RTA and be after you for the TP claims. I bet that will create more indignation and outrage than the shame faced drunks. Admiral in a tiny minority of insurers that use these exclusio
  5. Not specifically in their requirements of Admiral but it is strongly implied in their decision "As Admiral was provided with the appropriate indemnity from the named driver, it has the right of recovery against him but its success or otherwise should not affect the policyholder, Mr X (me) or indeed his NCD, as costs incurred by Admiral were not costs incurred under the policy, but cost incurred under its liability as detailed in the Road Traffic Act." I know the FOS are notorious for weird, irrational decisions but his looks like the best outcome under the circumstances and
  6. Thanks for the advice Dacouc. I will request a copy of the police report. The Credit hire was £61 per day for 73 days which was eventually reduced. I would expect Admiral to at least determine for themselves that the damage fits with the PI claims - I know this is a contentious area and people say injury can happen at any speed. In Germany it has to be at least 10kph and has to be heard in court. Admiral won't give me copied of the medical reports because of the DPA - although they could surely obfuscate them. Already considering the debt management options. My son is not in
  7. I am not disputing my son's liability - as with any rear end collision you are banged to rights. My dispute with Admiral is 1. Is their D&D exclusion term fair? Exposing the policyholder and/or driver to unlimited liability - in the eyes of the FSA (now FCA) and the FOS the answer is yes. I have to accept it and deal with the next chapter. The FOS decision seems to absolve me of any liability which is a relief. 2. Was there a claim on my policy? - Admiral say yes FOS have decided no and any record of claim has to be removed 3. Was the "claim" dealt with properly and did Admiral
  8. If your call costs are due to premium rate numbers have you checked for alternative geographical numbers on saynoto0870.com ?
  9. Correct. Police attended. Classed as minor RTC. No mention of people injured but I haven't seen a report and Admiral haven't request one. Also need to add that snow and ice may have contributed but not disputing that my son is guilty of D&D.
  10. The car has 6 previous owners. Bought by the claimant in Feb 2010. Cat C write off in Nov 2008 and Cat D Write off in Nov 2007. Perhaps used in a series of insurance scams, or more likely sold between cab drivers. I don't dispute my son went into the back of the other car but how can light bumper damage turn into a £25k claim?
  11. In the current climate of fake claims it wouldn't surprise me if some of the passengers were made up but I don't have any evidence to support it. Admiral don't seem to have got any written statements from anyone and only took a verbal account from my son. The police logged it as a minor RTC but Admiral have not asked for the report which may have confirmed the number of people in the car. All down to keeping costs as low as possible. If you are faced with a £25k bill you might as well add another £5k to make sure you have challenged and corroborated and independently checked the claim.
  12. Just because the car had been written off a couple of times before (a Cat D and a Cat C) doesn't stop the minicab driver using it. It has to pass an extensive MOT type test before it is deemed roadworthy again after a Cat C (extensive damage). I did the HPI check not Admiral, they didn't know it had been written off before and it does affect the value of the car - The mincab driver should have got a lot less than he did. It just highlights Admiral laziness and incompetence. The indemnity form that my son signed is worded in such a way that it sounds like Admiral will go the extra mi
  13. The clause is in there my complaint was based on it being unfair to the consumer because it exposes the consumer to unlimited liability. It is not a common term. Most insurers don't pursue people for full refunds. I only read about Admiral doing this. The fact is, the vast majority choose their insurer on price and it is fair to say I got a fantastic multicar price from Admiral back in 2010. I don't recall their warning about the D&D clause and they couldn't find a recording of the call. Unfortunately my being blinded by the bargain price may end up being a very expensive error.
  14. I finally got a decision from the FOS Ombudsman. They have partially upheld my complaint. Sadly they think the D&D exclusion in the T&C's are fair and also that it is not a significant term. The bit they upheld was that no claim was made under my policy, instead Admiral had met their obligation under the RTA. Therefore all database records that state a claim was made on my policy must be removed and Admiral must compensate me for the additional costs incurred because Admiral had incorrectly logged a claim. This increased my subsequent policies. I know Admiral disagreed with this when t
  • Create New...