Help please

emmell

Why don't you just get the Micra repaired. You don't have to take it to an expensive body shop you could try barny the back street bodger.
ML.

sho_me_da_money

Guys,

I thank you for all your help and support with my matter,

Take care and God bless you all.

dacouch

!!!!!!_Van_Dyke wrote: »

The only comment I would add though is the ombudsman is referring to the roadworthiness aspect when insurers claim no MOT means it isnt roadworthy.

In this case the MOT is specifically mentioned as required.

May make a difference. Not sure.

Regardless 5 months down the line there is going to be an argument the vehicle may not have been roadworthy.

Not having an MOT does not mean a car is "Unroadworthy" if it did then the Ombudsman would state that if there is no MOT then the car is deemed to unroadworthy. He would not state that (Assuming they have the unroadworthy clause) that they can only deny the claim if the incident was caused or substantially caused by the unroadworthyness.

Quinn comically list as an example under their duty of care clause that all mirrors and lights must be in working order. How do you think the Ombudsman would view them declining a claim because your rear view mirror was missing when you had driven into the back of someone

Here is a thread by a poster with the same problem with the same Insurer (Quinn) who after seeking advice from MSE members was settled.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1887019&highlight=quinn


Note Quinn are renowned for trying to avoid claims or reducing the amount they pay in a claim. They were sucessfully sued in court for many many millions by a customer who they tried to pay a vastly reduced amount for their claim. The judge was tempted to place a contempt of court on a senior member of the Quinn staff for him continually changing his evidence.

Inactive

bezzza wrote: »

Did you manage to get this major fault fixed before the crash

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2299483&highlight=

or is that now conveniently no longer necessary?

Well spotted..

bezzza

Inactive wrote: »

Well spotted..

Also it appears the problem actually may have started in December 2009 (according to this other thread http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2129891&highlight=) - I do hope the insurance company aren't reading this

dacouch

bezzza wrote: »

Also it appears the problem actually may have started in December 2009 (according to this other thread http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2129891&highlight=) - I do hope the insurance company aren't reading this

The OP's car juddering when being driven has nothing to do with his car rolling back into another car so would have no bearing on the accident

bezzza

dacouch wrote: »

The OP's car juddering when being driven has nothing to do with his car rolling back into another car so would have no bearing on the accident

I thought the argument now was not the lack of MOT but of roadworthiness - my understanding through reading his threads is that he could be driving at 30mph and the car speed would plummet to 5mph - IMO I don't think that is roadworthy and should have been dealt with in December - who knows if that was the only fault he has not dealt with (warning lights on dashboard since buying are a clear indication that something was wrong but OP did little to rectify these) - it's people like this that put our insurance up year after year because they fail to maintain their cars unlike the rest of us who get regular services (even on 12 year old Rovers) and never miss an MOT. They then wonder why people like me (who have ready through several of his other threads related to this same car) are skeptical about how and why the accident should occur now. Whilst the OP does not deserve to receive no payout on his car, it does need to be reduced based on the faults it does have IMO

dacouch

bezzza wrote: »

I thought the argument now was not the lack of MOT but of roadworthiness - my understanding through reading his threads is that he could be driving at 30mph and the car speed would plummet to 5mph - IMO I don't think that is roadworthy and should have been dealt with in December - who knows if that was the only fault he has not dealt with (warning lights on dashboard since buying are a clear indication that something was wrong but OP did little to rectify these) - it's people like this that put our insurance up year after year because they fail to maintain their cars unlike the rest of us who get regular services (even on 12 year old Rovers) and never miss an MOT. They then wonder why people like me (who have ready through several of his other threads related to this same car) are skeptical about how and why the accident should occur now. Whilst the OP does not deserve to receive no payout on his car, it does need to be reduced based on the faults it does have IMO

I'll post the Ombudsman's guidance / rules on "Unroadworthyness" again, note the unroadworthyness has to have caused or substantially caused the actually incident

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.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#13

bezzza

Ok so the previous problems stated by OP in other threads may not have contributed to accident but what other faults where there with the car that may have?

As I said previously I think the OP should receive a reduced payout but it should now be based on (using the above guidelines quoted) the condition of the car. Do you think it would have passed an MOT?

Based on past experience (not same problems as OP but highlights how dangerous it is to drive a car that cannot maintain speeds) of when my car had a "flat spot" in 1st and 2nd gear which developed just before MOT due (don't they always?) I knew it wasn't safe to drive so I stopped driving it until a mechanic was able to look at car, fix and MOT it

Inactive

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Take care and God bless you all.

Does anyone else find that ironic, the OP that forgot his MOT, forgot to apply his handbrake is telling us all to " take care ".. :rotfl: