Genuinely forgot to renew MOT & car involved in accident. Help!

jammin_2

Quentin wrote: »

The problem with Quinn is that they do stipulate a MOT must be in place in their policy.

Quinn_Policy_Document_(GB) wrote:

12 You or any insured person must:
..
make sure the vehicle is kept in a roadworthy condition
and, if necessary, has a valid MOT certificate.

http://www.quinn-direct.com/documents/policydocs/motor_policy_gb.pdf

If necessary - but not stipulated who or what deems it as being necessary.

"If necessary" is not "if required by law".

ellionic

vaio wrote: »

Refer them to the FSO website and particularly the bit repeated in post #63 above.

Unless there is an allegation that the car was un-roadworthy AND that un-roadworthyness contributed to the accident then them paying for the damage to your car is not optional.

Sorry i should have said i have already done this i rang and explained that it was a mistake with the dates and that i thought it expired when my insurance policy did on 31st.
also explained that car passed MOT with flying colours last time and has done about 4500 miles since last MOT. I was told makes no differance no MOT no insurance.

ellionic

jammin wrote: »

http://www.quinn-direct.com/documents/policydocs/motor_policy_gb.pdf

If necessary - but not stipulated who or what deems it as being necessary.

"If necessary" is not "if required by law".

The if necessary means if the car is a new one new cars dont need an MOT for the first 3 years of use.

jammin_2

ellionic wrote: »

The if necessary means if the car is a new one new cars dont need an MOT for the first 3 years of use.

Is that stated anywhere?

Quentin

Policies don't need to put a dictionary definition of every word they use!

ellionic

jammin wrote: »

Is that stated anywhere?

sorry cant be bothered to trail the net looking its just a fact if car is brand new and you are first reg keeper.

EdGasket

Re Post 74 'I was told makes no differance no MOT no insurance'
A real life example, I rest my case, Ed

dacouch

EdGasket wrote: »

Re Post 74 'I was told makes no differance no MOT no insurance'
A real life example, I rest my case, Ed

They may say its not covered, however when a an official complaint is put in (With the Ombudsmans guidance copied and pasted) they are likely to change their mind (Assuming the car was roadworthy / any damage did not contribute to the claim. Failing that the Ombudsman will over rule them assuming they fit his guidance notes.

The Ombudsmans rule is gospal to an Insurer, even an Insurer of Quinn's quality

Quentin

EdGasket wrote: »

I still say with no MoT you may only legally drive to a pre-arranged MoT; any other use is illegal. Why would an insurance company cover you to do something illegal?

Insurance companies aren't usually responsible for policing are they?

Are you suggesting that an untaxed car means your motor insurance is invalid?

In this case, the insurer unusually requires the car to have a MOT. This is not the norm, as previous posters have said.

jammin_2

ellionic wrote: »

sorry cant be bothered to trail the net looking its just a fact if car is brand new and you are first reg keeper.

That's not what I meant. Anyway being or not being the first registered keeper has nothing to do with MOT.