URGENT Help - Just had a crash.

Inactive

That looks to be an almost certain write off to me, it will have a seriously damaged floor pan.

pendulum

They could even deny a claim if there was any suspicion of the crash happening as a result of handbrake failure, since handbrakes are checked at MoT and you don't have one. With some insurance companies they look for any excuse.

easy

Um .... I think you may have bigger problems here.

I suspect you insurance is invalid if your MOT has expired. If the insurance co do want to write off the car, they'll ask to see all the documents, they'll see no valid MOT, and you'll get nowt.

I know this will be bad news for you, but blimey, these sort of things are the responsibilities of owning a car. At least no-one else has been injured in this.

pulliptears

easy wrote: »

Um .... I think you may have bigger problems here.

I suspect you insurance is invalid if your MOT has expired. If the insurance co do want to write off the car, they'll ask to see all the documents, they'll see no valid MOT, and you'll get nowt.

Wrong.

But nice to see that old chestnut reappearing....

easy

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

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 don't believe I am wrong, if this clause is in the Ts & Cs of the policy.

Inactive

easy wrote: »

Um .... I think you may have bigger problems here.

I suspect you insurance is invalid if your MOT has expired. If the insurance co do want to write off the car, they'll ask to see all the documents, they'll see no valid MOT, and you'll get nowt.

I know this will be bad news for you, but blimey, these sort of things are the responsibilities of owning a car. At least no-one else has been injured in this.

Wrong, but they may well reduce the value of the car to adjust for lack of MOT, that is in the case of a total loss, which this looks very likely to me.

Inactive

easy wrote: »

I don't believe I am wrong, if this clause is in the Ts & Cs of the policy.

On that basis, you could say that clause (a) will invalidate it then.

the182guy

easy

Inactive wrote: »

On that basis, you could say that clause (a) will invalidate it then.

In the same way that clause (d) invalidates the policy if you leave your keys in the car, yes.

pendulum

I at first thought that they would just reduce the value of the payout as well.
However if, as a condition of the comprehensive insurance, they have stated that the owner must maintain a valid MoT certificate on the car, and the policyholder agreed when taking out the policy, and this condition is broken, why can't the insurance refuse to pay out on the damage to the vehicle?

They don't make up these terms and conditions for fun do they? The deal is you get insurance so long as you comply with the conditions for the insurance. If you break the conditions, you generally either get no payout, or a reduced payout. Who can be sure what option the insurance company will decide upon here?

As it just rolled away whilst unoccupied, they might suspect mechanical failure also.