URGENT Help - Just had a crash.

thescouselander

I could be wrong but its surprising how fast the cost of a repair can mount up. Insurance companies can also be quite stingy when assessing the value of a car. It depends on what damage has been done - maybe you'll be lucky and it just looks worse than it actually is.

sho_me_da_money

thescouselander wrote: »

I could be wrong but its surprising how fast the cost of a repair can mount up. Insurance companies can also be quite stingy when assessing the value of a car. It depends on what damage has been done - maybe you'll be lucky and it just looks worse than it actually is.

If it is (a Write-Off) then I got a MAJOR problem on my hands.

Just checked my MOT documents and the last MOT is dated November 2009. F************************************************K!!!!!!

I have read the policy, which says this:

Duty of care

You or any insured person must:

a) take all reasonable steps to prevent accidents, injuries,
loss or damage;
b) protect the vehicle against loss or damage;
c) give us access, at any reasonable time, to examine the vehicle;
d) not leave the vehicle unlocked while unattended or leave the keys to the ignition with the vehicle while unattended; and
e) make sure the vehicle is kept in a roadworthy condition and, if necessary, has a valid MOT certificate.

I am praying this isn't a write-off. If it is, do I have any options or is it game over?

I got tax and cover until the end of May. I also have a full service stamp dated December 2009 by the local garage.

Please help!

vaio

Wow, ignore what I said earlier about it being a slow speed accident, that’s fairly extensive damage.

The write off question is not just to do with the cost of repairs being more than the value of the car.

I’m pretty sure they look at the whole package so if the repairs plus hire car plus risk is more than the car value less the salvage value then they will decline to repair and write it off.

If they do write it off (and I suspect they will) they also generally get to keep the unused part of your premium as a bonus as most policies end on a total loss payout.

Madmel

Hang on, if your MOT is dated November 2009, it's valid! No need to worry about that. Can't help on anything else, sorry, but hope you get it sorted.

sho_me_da_money

Madmel wrote: »

Hang on, if your MOT is dated November 2009, it's valid! No need to worry about that. Can't help on anything else, sorry, but hope you get it sorted.

Sorry I mean, it expired November 2009.

the182guy

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Sorry I mean, it expired November 2009.

Need to remove your photo with your reg number showing asap mate.

ukmike

I'd blank out the number plate too.

ukmike

Great minds?

vaio

Hopefully the MOT started rather then finished last Dec so it’s not an issue.

I think the rule is MOT are irrelevant and insurance companies can only not pay out if the vehicle was un-roadworthy AND that un-roadworthiness caused or contributed to the accident.

In this case it doesn’t matter as the OP forgot to pull the handbrake on so either way she’ll be OK.

As you said the worse that can happen is they’ll reduce the payout to reflect the fact that it doesn’t have an MOT

pendulum

The car looks like a write off to me judging by the pictures.
The insurance will probably say the car was worth less without an MoT - several hundreds quid less, because after all, a car with no MoT is worth less on the open market.

Expensive mistake, no getting away from that.