Admiral car insurance. Red flag?

[cirian75]

Admiral car insurance.


I remember there was something in the news a few years ago that for many of us regarded as a red flag.


For the life of me. I can't remember what it was

The reason I'm asking is because they seem to be the cheapest for the insurance on a Toyota Corolla hybrid I'm looking at by a fair margin.

[s70rmp]

They were the cheapest for me last year on My C43 and wife has just moved to them as they were much cheaper then others

[ScoobyChris]

Practice of asking you to declare speed awareness courses?

Think they've now dropped that so may be a moot point...

Chris

[Bowks]

I use them for a car and a house. Someone drove through my fence before Christmas and the repair has already taken place and I've been reimbursed. Seemed pretty easy to deal with.

[sly fox]

Admiral (and their group companies like Elephant) have an annoying habit of insisting on the use of driving behavior tracking devices for many car classes/driver profiles. (Not all). Was that the niggling doubt you had?

[cirian75]

ScoobyChris said:

Practice of asking you to declare speed awareness courses?

Think they've now dropped that so may be a moot point...

Chris

THAT'S THE BADGER!!!

[Sheepshanks]

Off the top of my head:

They have a reputation for “forcing” non-fault claims to their pet AMC.

There were suggestions they routinely use 2nd hand parts.

If the car is written off they don’t take account of factory fitted options - so if it’s within 12 mths and the car is replaced you get a basic one.

Massive battle every year on renewal premium (recent reprice-walking rules may have limited / stopped that).

Edited by Sheepshanks on Thursday 6th February 09:05

[MKnight702]

I try to avoid Admiral companies as a result of an issue we had a couple of years ago. My son had a loan taken out by fraudsters, it was reported to the Police (who were frankly useless). When we complained to Admiral, offering to repay the principal in order to clear the loan they weren't interested. We pointed out that my son hadn't taken out the loan, none of the details used were correct, especially that he was earning £25k (he was a student earning nothing). Admiral just said that they decided that the facts used to justify the loan were "reasonable" and wouldn't help. The Ombudsman decided that Admiral had fulfilled their duty of care requirements as a 20 year old could have been earning £25k. No proof of earnings was actually necessary, just, it looks ok.

[cirian75]

Swinton Any good ?

[rhamnousia5]

Sheepshanks said:

Of the top of my head:

They have a reputation for “forcing” non-fault claims to their pet AMC.

There were suggestions they routinely use 2nd hand parts.

If the car is written off they don’t take account of factory fitted options - so if it’s within 12 mths and the car is replaced you get a basic one.

Massive battle every year on renewal premium (recent reprice-walking rules may have limited / stopped that).

1. I thought they all do that

2. Not routinely, but they make it clear that may use OE, non-OE and recycled parts. Suppose it depends on your definition of “routinely”. Section 2 point 6 last sentence as per link below

3. Not true. Clearly states same ideal amd specification. Section 4 part 4

4. Don’t they all do that?


https://eui-pdf-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...

[trickywoo]

cirian75 said:

Swinton Any good ?

They have always been good on the phone with me but I’ve never claimed.

They like to really bump the renewal but that’s not uncommon.

[essayer]

“Carrying dangerous cargo”

[mmm-five]

MKnight702 said:

I try to avoid Admiral companies as a result of an issue we had a couple of years ago. My son had a loan taken out by fraudsters, it was reported to the Police (who were frankly useless). When we complained to Admiral, offering to repay the principal in order to clear the loan they weren't interested. We pointed out that my son hadn't taken out the loan, none of the details used were correct, especially that he was earning £25k (he was a student earning nothing). Admiral just said that they decided that the facts used to justify the loan were "reasonable" and wouldn't help. The Ombudsman decided that Admiral had fulfilled their duty of care requirements as a 20 year old could have been earning £25k. No proof of earnings was actually necessary, just, it looks ok.

Until you mentioned it I didn't even know Admiral did loans.

Was there no fraud investigation from Admiral or the Police? If all the details were incorrect, who/where did the loan go to and whose bank details were used?

[Dingu]

You are going to get a load of random anecdotal twaddle OP. You won’t insure with anyone if you want nobody to have had an issue with any particular company. In fact you would never buy anything ever again if that’s the criteria.

[Skyedriver]

Dingu said:

You are going to get a load of random anecdotal twaddle OP. You won’t insure with anyone if you want nobody to have had an issue with any particular company. In fact you would never buy anything ever again if that’s the criteria.

^^this^^

[cirian75]

Dingu said:

You are going to get a load of random anecdotal twaddle OP. You won’t insure with anyone if you want nobody to have had an issue with any particular company. In fact you would never buy anything ever again if that’s the criteria.

I was just after trying to find out what made me put a mental block on ever being insured with them and when one of the guys mentioned the requirement to tell them to speed awareness course, the light went on.

[Dingu]

cirian75 said:

Dingu said:

You are going to get a load of random anecdotal twaddle OP. You won’t insure with anyone if you want nobody to have had an issue with any particular company. In fact you would never buy anything ever again if that’s the criteria.

I was just after trying to find out what made me put a mental block on ever being insured with them and when one of the guys mentioned the requirement to tell them to speed awareness course, the light went on.

Pretty sure that isn’t asked any more so if that’s your only reservation you can save yourself some money.

[snuffy]

I've just renewed my Nissan GT-R with them, with mods declared (wrap, exhaust, ECU, so 600bhp) for a couple of quid over £200.

I know I'm knocking on a bit (approaching 60), but I can't moan at that.

[Fatherdougal]

Can't fault them. My Cayman had an unfortunate meeting with a deer and there was no problem with me using a Porsche approved bodyshop (great job by Dick Lovett Swindon) and even paid to have the PPF replaced despite it not having been declared.

Best price by miles and don't stiff me at renewal.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

snuffy said:

I've just renewed my Nissan GT-R with them, with mods declared (wrap, exhaust, ECU, so 600bhp) for a couple of quid over £200.

I know I'm knocking on a bit (approaching 60), but I can't moan at that.

This is PH, I'm afraid you have to moan. Along the lines of;

They fleece us because they can, the system is broken, needs more regulation to stop them ripping us off, they all make extortionate profits, it's compulsory so the govt should run it so we're not charged outrageous premiums like £202 for a modded GT-R. Followed by "I don't know how they sleep at night".