This article is beyond the usual remit of community but in the same breath I thought it good community working to notify the public of the methods Admiral insurance employs to defraud its customers.
Here is a letter of complaint that outlines the illegal actions of Admiral insurance:
Over a two year period Admiral has attempted to mislead me quite fraudulently into believing I had an active contract and policy with them although Admiral cancelled my policy and related documents on the 9th November 2016.
In numerous emails and letters after said cancellation of the policy Admiral has continually attempted to threaten me with the cancellation of the policy and contract if I did not meet with their third party investigators.
Admiral attempted to use General Condition 2 of the contract -
give us all the information about the claim that we need
In order to forcibly acquire my consent to "act on my behalf" to contact the police.
I stated on numerous occasions throughout this continued harassment of over two years that I had already provided Admiral with all the information about the claim that I had. As such I would not have been able to provide third part investigators with any new information.
In addition to this, after Admiral cancelled the policy with which I had accumulated over 10 years protected no claims bonus, they offered me a premium several thousand pounds more expensive than the policy they cancelled when renewing. This is whilst I had been the victim of a crime. This led me to arrive at the clear understanding that Admiral was attempting to pass on the costs of the claim to me, the victim of the crime whilst I was fully covered for such an event.
With this understanding it was clear to me that Admiral was not acting in my best interest or on my behalf but clearly on behalf of their business to recuperate costs.
It is with this understanding I refused consent for Admiral's third party investigators to "act on my behalf" because Admiral clearly wasn't interested in acting on my behalf.
Also General Condition 2 stipulates that the customer should provide Admiral with "All the information about the claim that we need" which I already had. Admiral attempted to use this condition quite recklessly to demand I provide my consent to "act on my behalf" when it was clear to me that providing my consent was not a requirement of General Condition 2 and as such I was not in breach of contract.
These reckless and honestly harassing demands continued and I repeatedly requested Admiral consult with their legal team to verify the legality of Admirals claims and actions. All the while Admiral threatened to cancel my policy and contract if I did not comply with their demands.
It wasn't until 30th July 2018 over 20 months after Admiral had cancelled my policy, that Admiral finally admitted that I did not have an active policy with them that they could actually cancel if I did not comply with their demands and relinquish my consent through quite a serious and sustained effort to bully me into doing so.
I note that I notified Admiral that I found their continued attempts harassment and illegal in correspondance.
Then on the 19th July 2018 Admiral for the first time notified me that a "third party solicitor" had claimed to have contacted the police and was allegedly told that I refused to provide a statement.
I immediately disputed that allegation as false and Admiral made no further attempt to investigate further but yet based their conclusion on this new "information" despite it being untrue to claim I had not been truthful in my account of how the vehicle was stolen and on those grounds were refusing to indemnify me.
I had in fact been in correspondence with the officer dealing with the theft of my vehicle and provided details about the theft and requested that I meet with him and a senior officer that I knew in my work in violence reduction in the community to discuss. I have had a fairly long career in youth work and during this time I have met numerous senior officers.
This request was refused and I was told in the exact words by this officer that it "was not his job" and as such it was actually the police who did not want to meet with me to discuss the matters I highlighted to them.
These are the facts.
As such the information the "third part solicitor" allegedly gained from the police is absolutely untrue.
Kindest Regards,
Jason Featherstone
I subsequently requested a subject access request to gain access to all the communications and information Admiral held about this issue, Admiral sent all information whilst withholding the incriminating emails which is not also illegal but in serious breach of the regulations set out by the regulatory bodies - The Financial Ombudsman and the Financial Conduct Authority.
As such, I have no evidence that they did in fact attempt to defraud me in the manner described above and will be liable for costs of a claim over £7,000 when at the time of the event I had ten years protected no claims.
Do not trust Admiral Insurance!
*To clarify, the police found fingerprints in the vehicle and wanted me to press charges which I refused. At the time I suspected women I knew and some I didn't were being forced into prostitution and being tortured. I had been trying to help them for some time but no matter where I went, there was no support for this. I had tried to help since 2015. In order to get a conversation with the police about this I thought I would use this event as a means to make contact.
I advised the officer that there was a situation where women were being forced into prostitution, involving violence, drugs and everything in order to get a meeting to discuss and see how I could help the women. My requested meeting had nothing to do with the theft of the vehicle, I was trying to help the women. Also for those that are aware, I was trying to use the few weeks prior to this to make contact with a woman in south who I suspected was targeted by the same issue. I wanted to help her. Mimi.
I suspect this is one of the reasons why things were so messed up.
The officer said, "It wasn't his job" and the meeting was refused.
It was then I began to suspect that elements in the police are involved in human trafficking, torture and prostitution.
Update!
I have since raised another complaint against Admiral:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to log a complaint regarding claim 105328796.
After reviewing the limited information provided in the subject access request (which notably lacked the inclusion of the incriminating communications sent by Admiral falsely claiming I was still in contract and had an active policy which they could cancel), the following issues presented themselves:
Admiral refused to indemnify me because I failed to meet General condition 2 "Give us all the information about the claim that we need".
I had provided as recorded, several statements regarding the theft of the vehicle. These statements provided represented all the information I could offer. I was unable to provide any further information regarding the theft of the vehicle for the simple reason I had already provided all the information I could provide. I had no further information to offer.
Secondly, a statement from the police was used by Admiral to refuse indemnity based on the argument that I refused to make a statement or provide any information to support the "alleged" theft of the vehicle.
I immediately refuted this claim as false. As mentioned at the time of the event, I contacted the officer who was dealing with the theft - Liam Holden (I believe that is his surname). I requested a meeting with him and also a senior officer I knew from my career in youth work to discuss not only the theft of the vehicle but also the theft of my wallet, driving licence, bank cards etc earlier and also other events. I was told "It wasn't his job" and my requested meetings never occurred.
What I did do was refuse to press charges when officers found fingerprints in the car because I did not wish to be in court for the next few months after a very stressful period in my life. I had provided information regarding the theft of the vehicle when I made the call to the police.I never refused to provide a segment to the police, they refused to meet me to discuss the matter and that is fact.
As such the two primary issues Admiral have used to refuse indemnity are completely invalid.
Kindest Regards,
Jason Featherstone
I have since received this response from the Financial Ombudsman which as you will see completely fails to acknowledge the two issues in the complaint:
I have notified the Ombudsman of this failure.