On the second occassion speaking to Admiral, they were aware of the facts i.e. that the vehicle had been recovered and they agreed to settle the cash value previously offered. They then subsequently renaged on this verbal agreement which I had accepted. I would like to know if there is any leagal grounds to compel them to adhere to their original offer?
As a secondary issue, I had purchased a replacement vehicle and having spoken to the dealer was given the option of a full cash refund if I returned the vehicl by Wednesday 17th December. As Admiral offered to settle the claim on the Monday I didn't take up the dealers offer. I spoke with the dealer this morning and he confirmed the offer was no longer open.
Just need to know what my opens are - is there anyway I can hold them to their original verbal agreement to pay the claim given they made this knowing the car had been recovered. If not what other options are open to me?
Will you be responding to my question?
Just one clarification:
Admiral made me an offer and I accepted their offer. They were fully aware that the Audi had been recovered at that point. Does that not consitute a legally binding agreement in its own right? I am in the process of requesting the tapes from the call from Admiral.
Admiral were aware that I had purchased a replacement vehicle (Land Rover) but were unaware that the dealer had offered me an opportunity to return the Land Rover as I spoke to the dealer on Saturday and on the Monday Admiral restated their offer to pay for the Audi in full?