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

vaio

ellionic wrote: »

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.

Obviously it’s an emotive & stressful time for you but try and avoid going off the point, when the test was done and how many miles it’s done are irrelevant, the rules are the same whether it is two days or two years out of MOT. The point you need to get over is that the FSO is clear that lack of MOT is not an valid reason for refusing an otherwise valid claim.

I’d write to them (rather than speaking to a call centre monkey) pointing out the FSO guidelines and telling them that if they don’t sort things out in line with the policy you will lodge a formal complaint.

I believe they have to give you a written final decision before you can go to the FSO.

Quentin

The problem is to do with the policy, rather than them ignoring FSO guidelines.

They are abiding by the policy, and isn't this issue about establishing whether the policy is fair unfair?

thescouselander

Quentin wrote: »

The problem is to do with the policy, rather than them ignoring FSO guidelines.

They are abiding by the policy, and isn't this issue about establishing whether the policy is fair unfair?

I'd be surprised is the policy was deemed to be fair. The only thing an MOT tells you is that the car was roadworthy on the day of the test - nothing else. I cant see how having an MOT has any relevence to determining the state of the car at the time of the accident (unless the accident was on the day of the MOT)

isplumm

spangles30 wrote: »

Quentin, of course you're right that I opted for the high excess on my premium. I am just bemoaningthe fact that this incident is going to cost me dear.
Incidentally, my insurance company tells me that forgetting the MOT does NOT invalidate my insurance at all. We will see, as they are still working on the claim.
I will report back.
One of the things I feared most after doing internet 'research' is that many people claimed that not having an MOT invalidated the insurance.

Why is it costing you anything - the other insurer should pay ....

Mark

raskazz

EdGasket wrote: »

Seems like its a completely grey area and no wonder lawyers make so much money ! 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? e.g. Do you see insurance available to cover your burglaries?
I think with no MoT you are rather at the mercy of the insurance company; but good luck. I will follow this thread with interest to see how it unfolds.

With respect, it's really not a grey area. It's as ginnersinner, dacouch and myself (amongst others) have described. I work for an insurer, so trust me - I wouldn't agree with us paying out claims which we could repudiate.

raskazz

ellionic wrote: »

Just got off the phone to quinn insurance we were sure our car MOT ran out on 31st but it ran out on 21st accident happened 26th they will cover us for the other persons damage but not for our own.

This is typcial Quinn. Unfortunately you have learnt the hard way that they are not an insurer of good repute. As others have said, challenge it and if necessary refer to the Financial Ombudsman. They are taking the proverbial !!!!. I'm at work so don't have time to add any more but I shall certainly come back to this thread later because there are clear FSA rules relating to breach of warranty/condition, in addition to the FOS guidance.

raskazz

Right, you need to raise a complaint with Quinn. If you cannot resolve this over the phone then put your complaint in writing (recorded delivery letter) to:

QUINN-direct Insurance
Carran Business Park
Enniskillen
Northern Ireland
BT74 4RZ

Explain that your car was roadworthy at the time of the accident and that in order to repudiate any part of your claim they must be able to prove that (i) the car was unroadworthy at the time of the accident and (ii) that this unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the accident.

Explain that an MOT certificate proves nothing other than the vehicle was roadworthy on the time/date of the test and thus the absence of an MOT certificate does not in itself prove that a vehicle was unroadworthy.

Go on to refer them to the FSA's Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1) Rule 8.1.2R which states that:

"A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:
...
(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach"

So in attempting to repudiate your claim on grounds of breach of condition, they are in breach of FSA regulations, as the lack of MOT certificate did not cause or contribute to the claim.

Also make reference to the FOS's Technical Note that dacouch linked to earlier (http://http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html), that you are aware of your rights to refer the matter to the Ombudsman, and that it is unlikely that the Ombudsman will support the insurer's decision:

"13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.
In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value."

Also point out that their contract term relating to roadworthiness and MOT certification:

"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.
For example:
• the tyre-tread depth must be within the legal limits;
• all lights and mirrors installed on the vehicle must be
working properly; and
• the vehicle’s brakes (front and back) must be working
correctly."

Is ambiguous, i.e. it is unclear what are they referring to when they say 'if necessary', and thus is likely to be deemed unenforceable against the consumer under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

That should give them some food for thought. I would love to have a chat with the muppet who is attempting to decline your part of the claim.

Their actions are sadly typical of the kind of insurer who act as if they are still living in the era of self-regulation, and gives other decent insurers like mine a bad name.

molerat

dacouch wrote: »

The Ombudsman's rule is Gospel to an Insurer, even an Insurer of Quinn's quality

I must pull you up there for using the terms Quinn and quality in the same sentence. :rolleyes: Quinn are experts at wriggling, must be one of the best in the business.

ellionic, follow the excellent advice that Raskazz has given.

dacouch

molerat wrote: »

I must pull you up there for using the terms Quinn and quality in the same sentence. :rolleyes: Quinn are experts at wriggling, must be one of the best in the business.

ellionic, follow the excellent advice that Raskazz has given.

Quinn are the Ryan Air of Insurance (Allegedly)

ellionic

Can i start of by saying raskazz you are a star :beer:
The regional manager of quinn came to see me today and she said and i quote "we will honour there side of the insurance so we will pay for repairs of the other vehicle involved but unfortunately you will have to pay for your own repairs "
Now is she right in saying this can i still challenge this or do i have to take her word as gospel she took pictures of our MOT cert,driving license and a pic of car damage then just disappeared not saying what happens now or anything.
So should my next step be writing this letter to quinn?