Indeed but more specifically, under DD rules, they also have to give you a certain amount of notice once the amount of money is known, of how much they'll take, and on what date. I'm assuming that information was given and presumably ignored.

Thanks all

I phoned them this morning and explained that "before we start the complaint has already been registered with the ombudsmen, the money needs to be paid into my account before close of play today, there is a risk that because of your actions i will default on a mortgage payment and I am already bouncing of my overdraft limit".

The money has been paid directly into my account and i can now see it on my on-line portal. I paid no fees and am relatively happy with the outcome.

FWIW though, i have been an admiral customer many times in the past and never experienced an auto renewal. This feature should be opt in/out and they should not be able to authorize a direct debit without my written consent.

Perhaps i have missed this in the policy i received 12 months ago?. But can any of you honestly say they read the small print in every utility bill that comes through the door? I would hazard a guess that the vast majority do not and that is EXACTLY why this type of practice is created in the first place. It has ZERO to do with protecting dozy drivers, who forget to re-insure, it exists purely to extort money out of the populace by massively inflating your premium and catching people who dont spot this in the 14 day limit with admin fee's

I am not a noob when it comes to car insurance and i spend 3-4 months in the run up to renewal ensuring that my premium is the absolute best available. I also scrutinize any policy details regarding hire car, legals, roadside assistance etc. This is easy to do as they are the headline features and not hidden in the small print.

As Jerry C mentioned before it is most defiantly lesson learned, but it also means that Admiral will never get my custom ever again. Shame really because i have been a customer of theirs many times in the past.

Why won't Admiral get your custom again? you explained your problem and they rectified instantly, now AVIVA, they are a company that you should avoid .

Depends what you mean, I swapped from Direct Line to Aviva this year and got two cars insured for the same price as I was paying for one at Direct Line, then added a 24 year old as another driver for just £300 more.

You have to shop around every year, there will always be a company who want your business more than lots of other company's in the same way that there will be those who clearly don't want your business - and that situation will change from month to month.

Pay monthly (ok it costs more) and you won't lose a lump sum next year like the OP and mark your diary for next year giving yourself at least two months to look at the renewals and gather quotes again.

One thing I will give Direct Line credit for is that your renewal statement and actual policies state your level of no claims, I've been stitched up before by other company's (and I think it was Admiral) who don't do that on the actual policy and who then want an "admin fee" to confirm that after you've left them.

You learn as you go along...

Because in my opinion they never fully made clear a pretty important part of my policy and one that could have wrecked my Christmas.

Would you not be slightly miffed in two grand exited your account without your knowledge and explicit permission?

Try making a claim and it taking close to three years to sort even though i had 3 independent witnesses, photo evidence and a favourable police report, passed from one department to the next and ignored and fobbed off so much i had to get a solicitor to sort it all out for both me and my wife.

Whilst I can understand why you would not want to use this company again, many others use the same procedure (which is in my opinion wrong) - see Unsolicited Goods Act which[i nearly[/i covers it. But as stated above - they instantly rectified the problem and waived their charges. I would think that this was a good reason to use them again. Other companies might not be so obliging.

So if you got burgled and the thieves, once caught, offered to return your property, you'd be entirely OK with that?

I had a row with an insurance company recently. Paid my deposit (a month's premium) and sent in proof of no claims but they rejected them - for no good reason I can see, as the company I'm now with accepted them no problem.

They wrote to advise they were adding £178 to the premium and charging a £55 admin fee and an immediate random £76.55 in additional cover for the privilege, and that they would take payment within a few days. I immediately cancelled the direct debit and instructed them to cancel the policy, but seeing as they'd taken so long to write to me in the first place I was outside the 14-day cooling off period. Never mind that this constituted a 'major change' to the policy, which should therefore allow me to cancel free of charge (according to their own Ts & Cs).

Anyway, I won the battle in the end by pointing out that they had only taken a deposit, and according to The Financial Services Authority a deposit is a one-off payment (defined by the term 'deposit'), not a recurring payment and therefore they were not entitled to use my card details to take additional monies, which in fact should not even be held on file. I requested that they delete all payment details with immediate effect.

Of course I told them the Financial Ombudsman and Citizen's Advice had also been giving me advice - not true, I'd simply read the small print and done a little research. That email was my final correspondence to them, I never heard a peep again.

Not a very good analogy Cod'ead as burglary is illegal, taking a legitimate payment for an agreed service isn't. Although you don't/won't accept it, Admiral have not committed a criminal offence.

But, if I was legally obliged to be burgled and I had a choice of burglar, of course I'd pick the one who would return my property over the one who wouldn't.

Not possible. Assuming - none having been mentioned - the person in question has no other nefarious intent apart from the removal of your goods, then he is not a burglar. He would only be a burglar if he intended to steal, if his intention was to bring the stuff back then there was no intention to permanently deprive. You'd be picking a non-burglar.

There are a few situations where it would be possible. For instance if the burglar only brought the goods back because he or she felt guilty about having stolen them or they were useless etc, in this case they would at the time of having taken the goods had the [iintention[/i to permanently deprive the owner of them.

So there are situations when View from the fullback could get his goods back from a burglar.

All very interesting, but entirely off the point. In the example under discussion, the fact that the burglar WILL bring the goods back is a Rumsfeldesque "known known", otherwise if you didn't already know that, then obviously, you couldn't pick him. You need to read the case notes more carefully.

I'm with Ajw on this one. A bona fides burglary can take place and post crime circumstances could alter the offenders mindset in such a way that the property could be returned without negating the original intent to permanently deprive. An example of which could be where the offender is known to keep the goods secreted away say in a nearby wheelie bin for collection at a later date. If two separate burglars used that MO and it was known that, if arrested, one would own up to the crime and divulge the whereabouts of the property but the other would deny everything and allow the bin men to dispose of the property, then, again if I was obliged to be burgled, I would chose the former miscreant over the latter.

The case notes actually state " [iSo if you got burgled and the thieves, once caught, offered to return your property, you'd be entirely OK with that "[/i With the emphasis on [ionce caught[/i. In real time that is a future variable outcome which is usually unknown and therefore by definition not a "known known".

See those trees? That's a wood, that is. The last example was not on the original point, it was a subsequent (and different) hypothesis. You've now come up with a third hypothesis, which is attractive for being so barking, but is equally irrelevant. The only issue so far my post was concerned is the issue to which I was directly replying. Which said I'd pick the one who would return my property over the one who wouldn't.'"