Yes, boring as it may sound, I read the policy. What I can tell you is that nowhere in Admiral's policy document does it state that they can or may pay you cash, rather than repair the damage if the part of the vehicle under question has had prior repair work done.

Most cars on the road will have had an accident at some point. So if you have a second hand car that is comprehensively insured, and if you insure with Admiral then be aware.

As an update, this is going to the Financial Ombudsman for resolution. In my mind this is miss-selling and something that will apply to every single Admiral customer. If this is Admiral's policy then they can specifically ask the question when we buy the insurance on the same way they ask whether we have any points or where we are going to park the car overnight.

That should kill their sales overnight.

Edited by MA-S on 13/06/2017 at 22:04

Agreed - if it doesn't mention it in the policy document, then tell them to comply with the legally binding contract that was in place.

I can kind-of see their viewpoint. Far too easy for unscrupulous people to get areas repaired using cheap 'copy' or even second-hand parts (but claim for OEM parts, in connivance with a dodgy repair garage). But if they want to avoid this, then it needs to be in the policy and contract documents.

Depending on the age ofthe car, some insurers insist on the right to use secondhand parts - so what's the insurers' position if the same part(s) are damaged in a further accident?

I have no problem with reading the docs at all and abiding by them. But, the language is vague on a very specific situation which could be true of most second hand cars (most second hand cars have probably had something done to them). The point is this: because of a prior repair, they do not want to repair it. I need to know that when I take out the insurance, in the same way that, say, I have to be explicit with the insurer about the way in which I may use the car (social vs. business).

This issue around prior accident-reapir work should be cystal clear in the terms, whether it is industry-standard or company-specific. It cannot be too hard to say this in plin English.

If the policy language was explicit on this point then there would be no need for debate. But it is not and as a reasonable consumer, I would not expect this to be a term of my insurance unless specifically mentioned. The reason why it is so vague, I would imagine, is because the insurance companies would be disclosing this unscrupulous practice and everyone would be mighty annoyed.

The insurance companies should however look at this as a marketing opportunity and actually charge a premium for such cover.

Thank you for your message - I am not sure, it may well be the case. I am going to find out shortly via the Financial Ombudsman.

These companies shouldn't need the law though to tell them what is fair and what is not: they are commercial businesses and they ought to see transparency as a competitive advantage rather than obfuscation as a cost-control mechanism.

Some policy wording is now dumbed down (ie it's very clear that you're not covered for certain things) but it should not be some language, it should be all. I feel relatively comfortable around these documents but I would imagine that they may be impenetrable for others.

In my mind, they should ask: "has the car been in an accident" and then ought to flag how they might choose to deal with a claim where there has been prior repair work. They ask me if I have ever had a claim / if I have points / where I park the car / how I will use the car. So it seems fair, that they should disclose to us too, in more clear detail.

they'll surely want the work doing at an insurance approved workshop. The last thing an insurer wants to be doing is covering a car with an unspecified quality of repair work having been carried out.

I have friends who own bodyshops and other friends that are panel beaters who have worked in several body repair shops. I have also had cars repaired by 'insurance approved' bodyshops and all of us would agree that 'insurance approved repairer' and 'quality' do not go together.

Insurance approved repairer means only one thing........... Cheap!

Thanks for your message ... the car is totally drivable. The accident was reversing into a lamp-post so it's basically just a dented bumper and slight indentation to the rear quarter panel (and the boot got chipped).

Again, the real issue here is just Admiral thinks that they can pay cash rather than fix it because that part of the car has previously been repaired. That would be fine, IF, they made that clear in their terms of business. Why would you choose to insure with a company that can do that without explicitly saying so? If this is normal practice, when you are buying a second-hand car, you really really would need to know about every accident the car has had prior to you taking ownership. Otherwise, like me right now, you may end up in this situation.