Not when you are Admiral Insurance and you just blamed a trainee teacher for being robbed at gunpoint at her part time job and getting her car keys stolen you can’t.
With wide public opinion that car insurers are piling on the premiums, and in do so blaming the honest hard working motorist for the actions of car thieves, fraudsters and those who don’t get insured, getting a positive image as a car insurance provider isn’t going to be easy, and you could argue that a mildly negative reputation could be seen as a by-product of just being in the industry. But whilst the high premiums are a cause for concern, we as consumers can still shop around, or walkway from the deal, and in the strictest sense, a good or bad reputation should be centred on the product or service, and its delivery thereof, not just price alone.
So you would think that with this in mind, insurers would do all they could to give good customer service and moreover, adequately support those genuine claimants’ in their hour of need. Bearing this in mind, I was somewhat astounded that Admiral Insurance would go to such long and somewhat perceived underhanded tactics in order to avoid paying out a legitimate claim.
The full story is here – Dailymail.com Article - but in short, a trainee teacher from Liverpool was robbed at gunpoint from a newsagents’ she had a part time job in, and during which her car keys were stolen, whilst in her purse. In her traumatised state, she had not reported her car keys stolen to Admiral, but had done so to the police who attended the scene of the armed robbery. It transpired that the thieves followed her home and stole her car the next night.
Admiral says the claimant, Ms Buckler should have realised the thieves would follow her and she should have changed the car’s locks. Realising the thieves may now know her home address after her car was stolen, Ms Buckler changed her house locks. But Admiral even used this against her, claiming she understood the risk of her property being stolen, even though this happened after the car had been taken.
What we are essentially dealing with here is not someone who was out drinking and lost their car keys, but someone who was held up in an armed robbery – a victim of a serious crime involving firearms - and has the police report to prove it.
That Admiral would try and deny such a claim is unlike any circumstance I have seen reported online in respect of consumers complaining about a particular company’s customer service, or lack of, product faults, missed delivery slots and the like and it puts many consumer complaints into perspective.
Needless to say, as soon as the matter was reported and made public, Admiral signalled an immediate U-turn and paid out. But with such an extreme set of legitimate circumstances resulting in a stonewall refusal to pay out, what does this signal to prospective consumers, shopping around and considering Admiral, or its other brands?
Admiral Insurance, are the Cardiff-based group which also owns brands such as Confused.com, Elephant.co.uk and Diamond. Pre-tax profits for the first six months of the year came in at £160.6m, up 27% compared with the same period last year and total sales rose more than 50% to pass the £1bn mark for a half year for the first time.
This blog post is based on reported facts and is neither a message of support, or condemnation for Admiral Insurance, or its associated brands.
Whilst consumers may post complaints online that a DIY superstore missed a delivery date of some garden furniture, the bank charged them £30 for going £15 overdrawn, or that the iPhone 4S battery life is a joke at times, in comparison, being robbed at gunpoint and being blamed by your insurer wins hands down as a legitimate cause for concern over a company’s practices.
And with this in mind I will give the last word to an Admiral Spokesperson and leave the reader to decide or comment on whether Admiral’s online reputation should suffer as a consequence?
‘We are sincerely sorry Ms Buckler’s traumatic experience has been compounded by the way in which her claim has been handled. ‘I can confirm we will be paying Ms Buckler for her claim and, by way of apology, we will be waiving the excess of £250 and offering her £500 compensation.’