MOT & insurance claim (policy clause)

dacouch

This is the relevant part of the link Vaio posted.


"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."

P.S Not having an MOT will generally mean an Insurer values the car on the "Trade" value

hozepipe

Just spoke to CAB about it and the lady there told me that if the terms of the insurance state that I have to have a valid MOT then I can't argue against it as I have accepted the terms of the policy. Pretty grim if that's right.

vikingaero

hozepipe wrote: »

Just spoke to CAB about it and the lady there told me that if the terms of the insurance state that I have to have a valid MOT then I can't argue against it as I have accepted the terms of the policy. Pretty grim if that's right.

CAB aren't always correct. They only have basic consumer training and are unlikely to have detailed knowledge.

LandyAndy

hozepipe wrote: »

I know what I did wrong, but I wasn't posting on here for forgiveness you dingbat!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

hozepipe

vikingaero wrote: »

CAB aren't always correct. They only have basic consumer training and are unlikely to have detailed knowledge.

Phew, I hope so. Current state of play it to push the other insurers to admit liability (the driver did at the scene, and to the police, and it was indeed her fault, but apparently its not up to her - if her insurers think they can get away with a 50/50 (it was a side impact) they will try.

I've just received her statement of the accident and it corroborates what we have said completely - she all but admits she drove into us...! :mad:

vaio

Don’t know if you’ve considered it but I’d have thought that unless it’s something special, a repair bill of £4.5k on a 53 plate car is pretty much guaranteed to write it off.

hozepipe

I have yes, though the assessors told me that its significantly low enough compared to the value to make it economically repairable.

dacouch

hozepipe wrote: »

I have yes, though the assessors told me that its significantly low enough compared to the value to make it economically repairable.

There is a good chance they will not request the MOT if they are repairing the car. If they do discover the car has no MOT the write off value will in effect become the "Trade" value which could result in the car being written off (Probably after they try and blag you that the policy says they don't have to pay)

forgotmyname

hozepipe wrote: »

I have yes, though the assessors told me that its significantly low enough compared to the value to make it economically repairable.

What is it a rolls royce? Some bargains out there these days.

Still a good time to buy but prices are starting to hold & may start climbing soon.

hozepipe

dacouch: I'm still a little uncertain about this aspect, ie whether the insurers have a genuine right to deny cover because of the clause in their policy about having an MOT, or whether as has been suggested here, for them to deny liability based on a bit of bureaucracy rather than the fact that the car WAS perfectly roadworthy and not the cause of the accident would be deemed unfair practice if we had to 'claim and complain' and get the ombudsman involved.

forgotmyname: current market value is about 10k so the repairs are much less than 50% of value. Think I was told somewhere that it has to be around 60% for a write-off but could be wrong. Ultimately it has to save the company money by writing it off.