no MOT car is write off, 1st central not paying

dacouch

Sassy-one please take the time to read the thread before you state categorically that not having an MOT invalidates an Insurance policy, you statement is totally wrong.

dacouch

sassy-one wrote: »

I stand to be corrected but I think you will find I am right, read the small print of your policy, also found in the Terms and Conditions.

It will state somewhere in small print that at the time of a claim the car must have a valid MOT IF on a public road

Once again please read the whole of the thread, there are plenty of links that dispel your belief

sassy_one

dacouch wrote: »

Sassy-one please take the time to read the thread before you state categorically that not having an MOT invalidates an Insurance policy, you statement is totally wrong.

So you are telling me that, if A was to drive a car without an MOT and crashes into B and A is found to be at fault, that after the insurers have the documents, which they will request, that there going to pay out for a unroadworthy car involved in an accident?

I think some people need to read there small print on there policy as it clearly will state, that for the car to have insurance and be valid it must have a valid MOT, in some policies it will state that they are only covered Third Party, but you will not get full cover.

i know this is the case as its stated in my policy for my car that I happen to have a valid MOT on, I think you all should remember the OP has been using a car without an MOT, does that not concern anyone?

raskazz

sassy-one wrote: »

I stand to be corrected but I think you will find I am right, read the small print of your policy, also found in the Terms and Conditions.

It will state somewhere in small print that at the time of a claim the car must have a valid MOT IF on a public road

I think you will find that you are totally wrong. I don't need to read my policy because I underwrite motor insurance for a living.

The topic has been discussed ad nauseam on other threads. Try this one for starters:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1887019

george-s2

dacouch wrote: »

Well done for getting 1st Central to answer the phone, as most of the posters on the MSE complaint threads about 1st Central mention it is very difficult to get through. They also report that 1st Central don't bother ringing back or replying to emails, so you will need to keep on their case.

A good tip is to ask the person's name at the start of the call and then use it as much as possible in the call. At the end of the call summarise want you expect them to do and what they have agreed to do and within what timescale. Also remind them that you have noted their name and the time of the call. If you do this Insurance staff are far far more likely to do what they have agreed and actually call back

yes, it was hard to get trough it took me about 20min waiting, and spoke with the person call Harry and he promissed to call me back today, still waiting time now 22.40, not good for the start ...if no call back tomorrow i will send pm to Tom and Robin as you sugested. will see if that helps to move things.

dacouch

sassy-one wrote: »

So you are telling me that, if A was to drive a car without an MOT and crashes into B and A is found to be at fault, that after the insurers have the documents, which they will request, that there going to pay out for a unroadworthy car involved in an accident?

I think some people need to read there small print on there policy as it clearly will state, that for the car to have insurance and be valid it must have a valid MOT, in some policies it will state that they are only covered Third Party, but you will not get full cover.

i know this is the case as its stated in my policy for my car that I happen to have a valid MOT on, I think you all should remember the OP has been using a car without an MOT, does that not concern anyone?

It looks like you C.B.A to read the whole thread so I will give you some salient points with the relevant links.

From the Ombudsman's site

"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

The above over rules the wording in you policy about MOTs.

So to summarise, providing there is not evidence that the claim was not caused or substantially contributed to by the "Unroadworthyness" of the car (Note no mention of an MOT) then the Insurers will HAVE to deal with the claim.

They may well reduce their offer for a total loss as a car without an MOT is generally worth less with one with an MOT.

thescouselander

sassy-one wrote: »

So you are telling me that, if A was to drive a car without an MOT and crashes into B and A is found to be at fault, that after the insurers have the documents, which they will request, that there going to pay out for a unroadworthy car involved in an accident?

I think some people need to read there small print on there policy as it clearly will state, that for the car to have insurance and be valid it must have a valid MOT, in some policies it will state that they are only covered Third Party, but you will not get full cover.

i know this is the case as its stated in my policy for my car that I happen to have a valid MOT on, I think you all should remember the OP has been using a car without an MOT, does that not concern anyone?

If a car doesn't have an MOT it doesn't necessarily follow that the car is unroadworthy. Perhaps the car could be put through an MOT and pass immediately. Even if it does not pass a particular fault may not have any bearing on the accident and if this is the case of course the insurer should pay out and the FOS will back any consumer in this situation. You can't just go putting any old Ts&Cs in a contract if they are unfair - if a company does do this the law will not be on their side.

Also, just because your car has an MOT it does not necessarily follow that it is roadworthy - all the MOT tells you is that the car was roadworthy at the time of the test.

To be honest I don't really care if the OP didn't have an MOT, I'm sure there are plenty of cars that have an MOT but are in a dangerous condition - just look at all the cars driving round with under-inflated tyres.

molerat

sassy-one wrote: »

So you are telling me that, if A was to drive a car without an MOT and crashes into B and A is found to be at fault, that after the insurers have the documents, which they will request, that there going to pay out for a unroadworthy car involved in an accident?

I think some people need to read there small print on there policy as it clearly will state, that for the car to have insurance and be valid it must have a valid MOT, in some policies it will state that they are only covered Third Party, but you will not get full cover.

i know this is the case as its stated in my policy for my car that I happen to have a valid MOT on, I think you all should remember the OP has been using a car without an MOT, does that not concern anyone?

You seem to be confusing roadworthiness with having an MOT. They can refuse to pay out if the car is unroadworthy and that contributed to the accident. An MOT does not mean the car is roadworthy. The insurers could state that you are not allowed to eat chips in the car which would also be considered an unfair contract clause.

My car is technically unroadworthy in that it would not pass a vehicle inspection by someone who knew his stuff yet it cannot fail an MOT on that point (it has passed three) and it would not contribute to an accident. How would an insurer deal with this ?

vaio

sassy-one wrote: »

……..If a ANPR or Police do a manual check on you and find you don't have a current valid MOT, they will impound and seize your car at the side of the road, no exemptions - there is no document they use to give out for you to pay a fine, take your documents to a Police station, your car will be seized under the Road Traffic Act……..

Pretty sure this is wrong

sassy-one wrote: »

……..Not only will they do that, depending on the circumstances you will also be reported to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of prosecution for the office of driving a car on a public road without a valid MOT, or in some cases you will just be reported for summons to the local court, which can lead to up to 6 points and a fine……..

Sure this is wrong

sassy-one wrote: »

………Failing to have a valid MOT at the time of an accident/insurance claim will make the policy void, the insurers can and will ask for the MOT, specially if a car is written off……..

Sure about this one too

Please please can we have the new button I asked for earlier?

marcowil

but why let the factual truth get in the way of what people think (know) is right!

Oh, and yes, please can we have that new button :-)