URGENT Help - Just had a crash.

dacouch

Inactive wrote: »

Leaving the handbrake off would appear to invalidate the insurance, however we all know that it will not.

Leaving the handbrake off would in most cases not invalidate the insurance or mean your claim was not paid, after all Insurance is to pay for accidents which by their very nature are caused by mistakes.

Acting "Recklessly" would / could mean a claim could be denied but leaving a handbrake off is not normally deemed to be reckless.

P.S There are situations where an Insurer will have to pay a claim where the keys are left in (Or on) the car depending on the exact circumstances.

Here is the Ombudsman's guidance on the matter (There are also quite a few case histories both where he has ruled for and against the claimaint).

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-insurance-keys-in-car.html

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/37/keys-in-car-cont.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/82/82-keys-in-car.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/38/keys-in-car-38.htm

Flearoy

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Oh god no.

Was the car Brand New?

It was a Renault Clio that I bought in July 04. It was written off in Nov 05, with 14k miles on the clock because a man driving a lorry carrying bricks drove into the back of it. There was much less damage to it than your car I'm afraid.

To my eye, the damage to the panel around the filler cap on yours looks expensive to repair.

sho_me_da_money

kwaks wrote: »

The MOT being expired will not automatically invalidate the insurance.

And looking at the pics I do not agree that a write off is inevitable. All I see is bumper & a light cluster from that pic. Bumpers ARE designed to absorb the impact forces so usually make the damage look worse than it actually is.

Well the car has been taken away and the driver was 50/50 about the state of the vehicle.

I have just had a call from the garage who said "the driver cannot determine this is demmed a write-off or not. He thinks it might JUST be repairable. We will need to take it apart and reach a decision in a couple of days".

Im praying that everything goes well and the determine is it repairable. It looks bad but the picture make it look much more worse than what it is.

dacouch

pendulum wrote: »

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.

The Ombudsman is a wonderful consumer champion (Although very slow). He tends to err on the side of the consumer. If a the wording is unclear he will interpret in the favour of the consumer and also uses the Unfair Contracts laws.

Just because an Insurer puts in an exclusion does not always mean that it can enforce it.

Have a look around the Ombudsman's website, there are case histories on all sorts of claims (You can perform a search). You will not believe some of the cases he has ruled in the claimants favour on. As a general rule he looks takes into account the wording and what is fair. He also normally takes into account that the consumer is not always that well informed on Insurance matters.

As an example here are a few cases the Ombudsman has dealt with that involved an element of fraud on the consumers part

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/42/42_ins_fraud.htm

sho_me_da_money

Dacouch.

Everytime I read your posts, my stomach stirs, a shiver goes down the back of my spine and I get a semi.

Thank you for your advice.

I admit I am a numpty for forgetting to MOT it.

kwaks

dacouch wrote: »

The Ombudsman is a wonderful consumer champion (Although very slow). He tends to err on the side of the consumer. If a the wording is unclear he will interpret in the favour of the consumer and also uses the Unfair Contracts laws.

Just because an Insurer puts in an exclusion does not always mean that it can enforce it.

Have a look around the Ombudsman's website, there are case histories on all sorts of claims (You can perform a search). You will not believe some of the cases he has ruled in the claimants favour on. As a general rule he looks takes into account the wording and what is fair. He also normally takes into account that the consumer is not always that well informed on Insurance matters.

As an example here are a few cases the Ombudsman has dealt with that involved an element of fraud on the consumers part

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/42/42_ins_fraud.htm

Got to love the numptie claiming for DVDs' which hadn't even been released yet:rotfl:

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

.......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"......

That's nice and clear and sensible, un-roadworthy vehicles are worth less so we pay out less.

What do you think they'll do if there is no evidence of un-roadworthiness but the car just doesn't have an MOT. Knock the cost of a test off the value?

thescouselander

Its probably worth noting that an MOT certificate doesn't prove the car was roadworthy anyway - all it means is that the car was roadworthy on the day of the test.

vaio

kwaks wrote: »

The MOT being expired will not automatically invalidate the insurance.

And looking at the pics I do not agree that a write off is inevitable. All I see is bumper & a light cluster from that pic. Bumpers ARE designed to absorb the impact forces so usually make the damage look worse than it actually is.

The rear quarter needing to be replaced is what I think is going to tip it over into total loss, tailates likely to need replacing too

vaio

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Dacouch.

Everytime I read your posts, my stomach stirs, a shiver goes down the back of my spine and I get a semi........

At the risk of alienating 50%+ of the population…….

Given the level of numptyness (sp?) involved in both the accident and the MOT I’d assumed you were a she. Looks like I was wrong.

With the same mindset I’d also assumed dacouch was a he because he talks sense & knows his stuff.

Perhaps you should get a room