I've seen a similar(ish) case recently where the Ombudsman decided the Insurer acted badly and is looking to award between £150 and £250. Try making an "Official Complaint" (Keep it polite, outline the issue and your ideal resolution). If you're not happy with RAC's answer / offer you can then take it to the Ombudsman

It is incredibly difficult for an Insurer to cancel the policy from inception (For obvious reasons), to be able to do this the Insurer needs to prove serious intent to defraud them. The policy would then be voided "Ab Initio" Voiding a policy in such a way was very very rare in the past, it is even more rare now as thanks to the Insurance Derrgulation Act voiding the policy in such a way (Still) leaves the Insurer potentially liable for claims. The common way since the recent introduction of the Act is to cancel the policy giving seven days notice in writing. This is a complex area and their is a High Court Case setting precident where a Taxi driver appealed against a no insurance conviction by claiming his private use policy provided cover under the RTA even though he did not have taxi cover. The court ruled against him. I can never find this case, but if someone wants to spend time searching the web it is there, the drivers name was Ahmed or along those lines The EU have been trying to ensure that third parties are covered either by the RTA or the MIB eg section 75 Insurer by trying to fill in any gaps. There are fairly recent (European) court cases where the court have ruled that "Any use" makes the Insurer liable under MIB (When not an RTA liability). The court was not ruling on use as in the topic but on another matter but they are trying their best to eleminate any situations where a case may not be covered by the RTA or the MIB.

Further to Supervillain's post, if it was not the third parties garage it would have been your broker who arranged the repairs and the credit hire and it was presented to you (Loosely enough) that you thought they were calling from the other Insurer

Supervillain explains it perfectly

This will alarm some people... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/21/arron-banks-insurance-personal-data-leave-eu?CMP=share_btn_tw

If you do not cancel your previous Insurance, when your new company asks you to provide proof of your no claims bonus you will not be able to provide it

You may find this helpful... http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-disclosure-of-spent-motoring-convictions.htm I foresee a nice juicy cheque as an apology coming your way from the bank

Do you have the same Insurer for your car Insurance and home Insurance? Did you have an accident at the same time as the drink drive conviction? What is the exact wording of the question your Insurer asked you about "convictions" on your renewal?

How did your Home Insurers discover the conviction?

143/4 and 143/5 Are also worth reading for other relevant rulings http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/144/144-insurance-pricing.html

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/144/144.html 144/3 – Mr A complains that his home insurance is too expensive Mr A, in his eighties, had been living with dementia for a few years. He didn’t use a computer, and his wife, who’d always taken care of the home expenses, had died about seven years before. So after this he’d asked the insurer to send things to him by post. Mr A’s nephew got in touch with us when helping his uncle out with his household finances. He’d noticed the home insurance for his uncle’s two-bedroom terraced home was £1,400. He’d found similar policies online for as little as £150. Indeed his existing insurer was quoting £300 for more comprehensive cover. He’d been with the same insurer for 15 years, originally taking out the policy for £200. The policy had automatically renewed every year and Mr A had never made a claim. Mr A’s nephew complained on his uncle’s behalf that the price of the policy wasn’t fair. He told us his uncle was very upset to think his insurer had taken advantage of his loyalty. In response to Mr A’s complaint, the insurer said the price was correct and that the quotes on their website were lower because of “online discounts”. Mr A’s nephew asked for our help to sort things out. how we helped When considering whether Mr A was treated fairly, we looked at whether he’d been given clear information when his insurance was due to be renewed. He needed to have been able to make an informed decision about accepting the price and cover offered. Mr A’s renewal documents were sent to him by post. And for the first four years the price had increased very little. In the fifth year, it went up by 15% and by similar amounts after that. The insurer’s renewal letters told Mr A that as a valued customer he’d received a number of discounts for making no claims and staying with them. But we thought the difference in price between Mr A’s policy and the online policies couldn’t be explained by the online discounts alone. The renewal letters also referred to other policies being available, but said that unless his circumstances had changed, Mr A didn’t need to do anything. Overall, we thought that the information he’d had at renewal could have been misleading. From what Mr A’s nephew told us about his personal circumstances and his lack of direct engagement, we thought it should have been clear to the insurer that Mr A might need additional help in making an informed choice about whether to renew his policy. We didn’t think the insurer had done enough to let him know there were other, potentially cheaper, options available. Increasing his price each year without taking into account Mr A’s needs had left him potentially susceptible to detriment. We thought that his vulnerability should have been apparent from the fifth policy year onwards. That was also when the price of his policy had begun to increase significantly, the original new customer discount having been recouped by then too. We told the insurer to refund the difference in premiums, with interest, for each year between the price paid after five years and the subsequent renewal offers. The insurer also accepted our recommendation to pay £150 for the upset they caused Mr A.

Bear in mind that if they had obtained judgement against your husband, then it would have added further costs to the claim for you to pay. It is standard practice for Insurers to pay claims without going through courts where the claim circumstances and / or value are undisputed. Also bear in mind that it would be surprising if Admiral had medical evidence a couple of months after the accident to support the injuries. Generally the third party would visit their GP or Hospital (Although this is not essential) and evidence of this may not have been available a few months after the accident. Normal practice for an injury would be for the medical expert to perform their report a long time after the accident to allow time for the injuries to settle and / or recover. This enables a proper assement and for the Insurer to calculate the compensation. Admiral may have by passed a solicitor for the third party to reduce costs. In such a claim an Insurer would (Should) expect their paperwork to be very comprehensive so that if and when it's disputed by you that everything stands up to scrutiny and there can be no disputes over the payments made. It's worth noting that Admiral are very efficient at pursuing such payments.

This struck me when I read the OP. The communications would normally be through the Insurers of the vehicle and the fact that the MID are writing to the registered keeper would indicate there is a problem somewhere along the line

Stupid question, but how did Hyperperformance explain the All Sections excess? Did they just tell you it applies to all sections or did they tell you that it is paid if you claim or did they properly explain how it works?

The Ombudsman may disagree that XS Directs cancellation charges are acceptable as the FOS would not normally accept that level of charges for a cancellation unless the Insurer can justify it. The Insurer may argue that due to the profile of the type of drivers they attract they need high charges to cover the costs of drivers taking cover out and then cancelling or defaulting part way through the policy http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/54/insurance.htm