Jump to content

Glitch

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Glitch

  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
  15. This is the best explanation I have found so far. pages 368 onwards http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uJkwId8zvS0C&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=rta+section+148+in+plain+english&source=bl&ots=oiD_T6Ev8z&sig=XTl6638X3-In7ITBYZ2am3eE_aA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LXEEUKn_JuXK0QXRndi2Bw&ved=0CGQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=rta%20section%20148%20in%20plain%20english&f=false Seems to play into the hands of the insurer. 1 step forward 3 step back
  16. What I think sub section 2 relates to is preconditions at the time the policy is take out - e.g. if you lied about your age, physical defect, e.g. Blind in one eye, limb missing etc. Basically if you misled or lied, or didn't disclose a change in condition of driver or the car itself. I had misinterpreted section 148 thinking that they couldn't exclude due to D&D because of Physical and Mental condition but new I am thinking DUI does not allow recovery of costs under Section 148 (2) and (4) This made it a bit clearer to me http://yinsurance.co.uk/motor-certificate/
  17. Yes I think you are. Not sure why I didn't see this before. I have stared at it too long for it to make sense any more. It gives rise to a multitude of conditions where they could recover costs. According to this they don't even need an exception in their policy so a bit perplexed why they specify it. I am sure the majority of insurers don't seek to recover costs in the way Admiral do.
  18. Yes they have paid out (only meeting their TP liability under the RTA) and they are recovering their losses under the terms of the contract. What I am trying to understand is under UK law are they entitled to recover the TP losses? My understanding is that the RTA prevents the insurer having terms in the policy to avoid or recover their losses. Clearly it negates the point of the policy (other than TP gets paid by my insurer) if the insurer can introduce terms that enable the right to recover losses. If that were the case then the insurer could introduce terms to recover costs
  19. Thanks ray. I had asked them for a full breakdown myself but they have been very evasive so if they have to provide it as legal evidence they are going to struggle. They won't share medical reports because of Data protection, although the muppets did manage to send me the claimants name and address by mistake!. They can't even supply me with a proper photograph of the damage to the other car after I received a really poor, illegible B&W photocopy. They also didn't know the car had been written off twice before, I found that out myself. It just drags the whole process out. Already 18 m
  20. Thanks ray. Can you explain your point "As they wont have all the details to persue the claim fairly"
  21. Thanks Bang! you have certainly put a spin on it that I hadn't considered. I assumed the contract applied equally to the named drivers. The RTA focusses on those named in the Certificate when it comes to the insurers liability. The policy term does say the insurer may seek to recover costs from the Policyholder or the driver which is somewhat scary. I am sure the insurer is just trying it on and as far as I can see it would have to be tested by the Court of Appeal and European Court. I can find no record of a successful court case but I suspect many victims agree a repayment schedule b
  22. Thanks for the reply. Still waiting on the FSA re Unfair Term. I lodged my complaint in January! The way they operate it could take many more months. They don't look at this as an individual complaint (specific to my circumstances) but "on behalf of all consumers". Are you saying that the EU preliminary judgment and EU Directive applies or, will the court only look at UK law? If only UK Law then it surely helps as Section 148 stops insurers avoiding their liability. I am not a legal expert or used to reading these complex wordings so perhaps I have read the RTA wrongly, particularly sec
  23. Update. Asked the FSA to look at the term which I consider to be unfair. It disadvantages the consumer in what is a non-negotiated contract, exposing them to unlimited liability. Highest motor insurance claim i have found is £20m. Compliant progressing with the FOS. It is now going to the Ombudsman. I now understand why the insurer thinks they can get away with this term. Under UK law is it not possible to include in the contract for compulsory TP insurance any avoidance of the policy due to (amongst other things) physical and mental state of the driver. Section 148 of the RTA covers
  24. As far as I can make out most insurers pay the TP costs and leave it at that without pursuing the debt, although they may reserve the right. My insurer seems to have a more aggressive approach. It is acceptable that they don't pay up for damage to my car however it is somewhat perverse that because he was over the limit he has saved the insurer the cost of replacing my headlamp and grill. I will help him play this out and wait and see how far they take it. They have to get a court judgment in their favour before they harass him for payment. My son has no assets and a low wage so th
×
×
  • Create New...