Pursued by insurance company for uninisured losses

[Glitch]

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 for any accident where the law has been broken. Undue care and attention, Dangerous driving, speeding, etc.

 

Hence my interpretation which says they could not recover losses for the reasons in RTA Section 148 subsection 2 unless they are using EU Directive specifically relating to the Ruiz Bernaldez case.

 

As an aside they will not pay for the damage to my car even though I had fully comp insurance. This is a lesson to parents having their kids as named drivers!

[raydetinu]

that is why they try to claim of you without going to court!

Doubt it will go to go court for the reasons stated.

By law they have to cover TP loses on your policy, however as you have broken the terms of the agreement they will not not pay your loses.

And yes if they want to put clauses in about speeding etc. thay can, but wont get many takers, we all make mistakes and that is what insurance is for, having said that drink and drugs are deliberate premeditated acts, and not errors of judgement.

[Ganymede]

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 for any accident where the law has been broken. Undue care and attention, Dangerous driving, speeding, etc.

 

Hence my interpretation which says they could not recover losses for the reasons in RTA Section 148 subsection 2 unless they are using EU Directive specifically relating to the Ruiz Bernaldez case.

 

As an aside they will not pay for the damage to my car even though I had fully comp insurance. This is a lesson to parents having their kids as named drivers!

 

 

 

Am I reading this bit right?

 

 

(4) Any sum paid by an insurer or the giver of a security in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy or security by virtue only of subsection (1) above is recoverable by the insurer or giver of the security from that person.

[Glitch]

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.

[Glitch]

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/

Edited July 16, 2012 by Glitch

[Glitch]

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

[ravinaldo]

hi just wanted to find out how your situation with admiral has developed. im in a similar position with them wanting to recover costs from me. im dreading the indemnity letter through the post but know its coming, they have already told me they are seeking costs.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Even if its just knowing that you have paid or made arrangements to pay.

 

have you come across a case of anyone actually being taking to court?

 

many thanks

[Glitch]

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 the Adjudicator made this recommendation before it went to the Ombudsman.

I now expect Admiral to ramp up their pressure to get my boy to pay up and threaten court action. I know they have done this to others.

[dacouc]

Bear in mind their is probably a clause in the policy (Usually near the start of the policy wording) giving the Insurer the opportunity to recover sums such as this from the policyholder, the Drink and Drugs clause you linked to earlier seems to confirm this.

[Glitch]

Bear in mind their is probably a clause in the policy (Usually near the start of the policy wording) giving the Insurer the opportunity to recover sums such as this from the policyholder, the Drink and Drugs clause you linked to earlier seems to confirm this.

 

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. Most other insurers would not be pursuing my son for recovery of the payout.

 

My advice is to read the T&C's very carefully and check reviews from Which and Defaqto.

I will never go near Admiral Group again I have found far better cover and value elsewhere. Also the more I learn about Admiral and their business model the less I like them anyway.

[citizenB]

 

@Ganymede. It was a 10 year old mincab (written off twice before) with a driver and 4 passengers. All but one made PI claims, supported by medical report (no doubt a friendly Dr used by the Claims Co. Driver went straight to a Claims Management Co and had a nice new(ish) vehicle for 17 weeks. Car hire cost several times more than the £1400 value of the vehicle.

 

I find this a bit worrying, is it likely that this is one of those dubious claims which are frequently highlighted. How can a vehicle that has been written off previously even be on the road as a mini cab in the first place. Surely that could have contributed toward the accident as well!

[dacouc]

I find this a bit worrying, is it likely that this is one of those dubious claims which are frequently highlighted. How can a vehicle that has been written off previously even be on the road as a mini cab in the first place. Surely that could have contributed toward the accident as well!

 

It's feasible a car could be written off for cosmetic damage be repaired and then be involved in further accidents without there being anything dubious.

 

It's probably why the taxi driver bought the car as it would normally be a bit cheaper but could be in perfect structural condition.

 

Taxis normally have stringent checks by their licencing authority at more regular intervals than private cars

 

How could the condition taxi driver being hit by a drunk driver be caused by his car being previously written off?

[citizenB]

dacouc, if a vehicle is being used as a taxi cab then surely it should be subjected to stringent "health checks" if you like. I also pointed out there have been many reports regarding this type of "accident" where old vehicles, stuffed full of people are suddenly involved in accidents - they then sue the other party for horrendous sums.

 

It just so happens that in this particular incident the other driver was over the limit. What if he hadn't been ?

[Glitch]

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 mile to reduce the TP claim. In reality I think it is just to secure a signed agreement that you accept liability and Admiral just follow the line of least resistance (and cost) to challenge the claim. In reality they just go along with what the TP's Claims Management ask for. Admiral did reduce the credit hire cost which was so obviously over-inflated and amounted to multiples of the value of the old banger the guy had been transporting paying passengers in.

 

I can only assume the mincab was road legal which it probably was but it irks me that the driver bought a cheap banger to ply his trade. I understand the rules will change and minicabs will have a maximum age applied. My excellent local cab firm have always insisted a max vehicle age of 5 years.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/9214351/The-truth-behind-category-D-insurance-writes-offs.html

[citizenB]

It would be interesting to know who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of each write off !

[Glitch]

dacouc, if a vehicle is being used as a taxi cab then surely it should be subjected to stringent "health checks" if you like. I also pointed out there have been many reports regarding this type of "accident" where old vehicles, stuffed full of people are suddenly involved in accidents - they then sue the other party for horrendous sums.

 

It just so happens that in this particular incident the other driver was over the limit. What if he hadn't been ?

 

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.

 

Admiral won't give me any passenger details or medical reports citing the Data Protection Act. That didn't stop them making the mistake of including the drivers full name and address in correspondence with me!

[dacouc]

dacouc, if a vehicle is being used as a taxi cab then surely it should be subjected to stringent "health checks" if you like. I also pointed out there have been many reports regarding this type of "accident" where old vehicles, stuffed full of people are suddenly involved in accidents - they then sue the other party for horrendous sums.

 

It just so happens that in this particular incident the other driver was over the limit. What if he hadn't been ?

 

If he had not been drunk the accident probably would not have happened.

 

It's an assumption but I would guess the accident happened at night time around closing time for clubs / bars when taxi's do tend to be full, if the son was charged with drink driving the police are likely to have attended and recorded the details of injured persons

[Glitch]

It would be interesting to know who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of each write off !

 

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?

[Glitch]

If he had not been drunk the accident probably would not have happened.

 

It's an assumption but I would guess the accident happened at night time around closing time for clubs / bars when taxi's do tend to be full, if the son was charged with drink driving the police are likely to have attended and recorded the details of injured persons

 

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.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Glitch
Added last line

[citizenB]

If he had not been drunk the accident probably would not have happened.

 

It's an assumption but I would guess the accident happened at night time around closing time for clubs / bars when taxi's do tend to be full, if the son was charged with drink driving the police are likely to have attended and recorded the details of injured persons

 

 

We don't know this for fact though. Whilst I am not seeking to make excuses for Glitch's son (neither is Glitch). The fact is that there was precious little investigating done by the sounds of things.

 

If this was not a genuine accident, then I see no reason that the people who co-ordinated it should not take some responsibility. Again, if this were not a genuine accident, then it might not be a drunk driver who is involved next time !

[dacouc]

We don't know this for fact though. Whilst I am not seeking to make excuses for Glitch's son (neither is Glitch). The fact is that there was precious little investigating done by the sounds of things.

 

If this was not a genuine accident, then I see no reason that the people who co-ordinated it should not take some responsibility. Again, if this were not a genuine accident, then it might not be a drunk driver who is involved next time !

 

The son went into the back of another car, there would have to be highly unusual circumstances for the son not to be liable.

 

It should be noted that being drunk does not make you liable for an accident, the cimrcumstances of the accident make you liable.

[dacouc]

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.

 

Your son should be able to obtain a copy of the police report for circa £40, they generally take between six weeks and three months to come through which is probably why Admiral did not bother obtaining it along with it being a slam dunk fault claim. If you look on the relevant police forces' website it normally explains how to do this under "data protection" or "data controller"

 

I'm guessing the credit hire was circa £80 a day, you can find the exact amount by googling "Abi hire rates taxi", you may need to cross refer with "Abi credit hire rates to find their definition of the vehicle code from private cars.

 

The claims management company (Who also provide the hire car) will normally pay for an engineer to value the car and your Insurers would normally accept this, a previously written off car is typically worth circa 20% less. When you factor in it would cost Admiral about £130 to send their own engineer to check the CM engineers value and the value of the car settlement being £1800 I can see why they did not bother especially as the sooner they send their cheque out the quicker the other party is out of the hire car.

 

If a credit hire was not provided, the taxi driver or taxi company would have claimed for loss of earnings which could quite easily be more than £80 a day especially if the car is in use 24 hours a day.

 

If / When Admiral do start to sue you or your son, you can request copies of the medical reports etc etc as part of your defence.

 

I assume there's a part of this forum that deals with debt management / bankruptcy, it might be prudent to get some advice from there as there may be some actions you both could take to reduce what you end up paying them. (I'm not saying they will make you bankrupt but sometimes preventative actions can save a fortune).

 

If your son had not been Insured and the claim had been handled by the MIB who pay out for uninsured drivers, they would likely have handled it in the same way although may not have settled so early which would mean larger legal costs

[Glitch]

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 minimise the costs? - not a main part of my complaint but the next chapter as Admiral will no doubt start proceedings against my son.

[dacouc]

Did the FOS speciifically say that Admiral cannot pursue you for their outlay?

 

Have you taken legal advice about the onnerous nature of the D&D term? If not it could well be worth speaking to a specialist consumer legal expert to see if it falls foul of the unfair contracts laws etc.

 

The FOS sometimes make odd decisions as they're very biased towards the consumer and tend to look at what's fair rather than what the policy wording says, what level did it goto within the Ombudsman?

 

I'm surprised they ruled it was not a claim as there's a section of the policy covering RTA (Liability to others) under which the claim has been paid as they have no option under the RTA statute, like any other claim where they have someone else they can claim off they can then attempt to recover their outlay.That would be my view of it but it's good news that they ruled in your favour on this part

[Glitch]

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 the country and if he returns there is no job awaiting him. Admiral will want to agree a repayment plan without going to court. I am sure when I have all the detail in front of me we will make an offer.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Glitch