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

b33r

Just read the thread, quite interesting really, I've certainly learnt something new.

Lol at sassy-one's EPIC FAIL and they still think they're right :rotfl:. Learn to read the thread before posting and then next time you might not look a fool


WARNING the post just below this contains another one!!!

Bela

In your T&C will state that in order to have a valid claim the car must have a valid MOT.
Some insurers will pay out but only if they actually do car about their clients and only because of long term policy in place.
Try to write a complaint , sometimes that does work.
Good luck

thescouselander

Bela wrote: »

In your T&C will state that in order to have a valid claim the car must have a valid MOT.
Some insurers will pay out but only if they actually do car about their clients and only because of long term policy in place.
Try to write a complaint , sometimes that does work.
Good luck

You've not been reading the rest of the thread have you?

cyclonebri1

sassy-one wrote: »

No it is not Policed as you were once dealt with.

Most Police cars are now fitted with cameras (ANPR) which reads details of your car from a huge database connected to DVLA/MID/Police National Computer/VOSA
Many areas now also have stings where they park a ANPR camera van up on the side of a busy main road which scans thousands of numbers plates an hour

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
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.

Unlike many people think and say, it is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to use a car on a public road knowingly without a valid MOT, I say knowingly as this applies if you test drive a second hand car and can't prove that you didn't know there was any valid MOT

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.

All this was brought in a number of years ago, to stop under insured and illegal cars being on the road

You been ODing on Road Wars and Police Interceptors again Sassy??

:D

pulliptears

As requested....lmao

roddydogs

sassy-one wrote: »

No it is not Policed as you were once dealt with.

Most Police cars are now fitted with cameras (ANPR) which reads details of your car from a huge database connected to DVLA/MID/Police National Computer/VOSA
Many areas now also have stings where they park a ANPR camera van up on the side of a busy main road which scans thousands of numbers plates an hour

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
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.

Unlike many people think and say, it is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to use a car on a public road knowingly without a valid MOT, I say knowingly as this applies if you test drive a second hand car and can't prove that you didn't know there was any valid MOT

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.

All this was brought in a number of years ago, to stop under insured and illegal cars being on the road

If only the above were true.............for a start the car has to be registered to a traceable keeper/owner..........2ndly they would be impounding so many cars, there just isnt the manpower to do this..........Agree that ANPR is better than nothing, but these progs shown on telly make it look like there doing a lot, which they aint, there still huge nos of Uninsured/no MOT, no Tax etc,. driven by someone with no licence, etc The ANPR can only scratch the suface of these at best.

kwaks

Must say I have had a chuckle at those so adament giving out false info.

Maybe if they learnt to read they would educate themselves rather than blindly believe what the insurer wishes them to.

sho_me_da_money

Having gone through something similar with Quinn Direct, let me just start off by saying, that the people telling you NO MOT = NO INSURANCE are full of donkey s**t.

My MOT was out of date by 5 months and I got paid in full with a 5% deduction. Originally the silly tw@ on the phone laughed at me saying i'd get nothing.

In my particualr case, the insurance company were refusing to indemnify based on a clause in the policy that stated something like

"The Vehicle must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and a valid MOT certificate is required WHERE NECESSARY".

My argument involved targetting a few angles. The first being the rule of CONTRA PREFERENTUM. In short, it basically means that if the underwriter has stated something in the policy that is NOT clear or ambiguous, they will automatically fail any argument they bring in court. Read more about this term on Google/Wikipedia.

The second part of my argument involved the wording from the financial ombudsman - section 13 (roadworthiness).

The last part of my spoke about attached case studies where the insured won by failing to meet a clause similar to mine - leaving keys in the cars etc etc.

Im not sure how much weight my letter will hold, as the rule of contra preferentum was very valid in my case. Some insurance companies/policies have clarified it better. Either way, I'll be happy to let you have a gander at my letter.

Can you post the EXACT wording in your policy regarding MOT?

Quentin

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Can you post the EXACT wording in your policy regarding MOT?

1st Central:

What is not covered under Sections 1 and 2

loss of or damage to the car if it is not covered by a valid department of transport test certificate (MOT), if one is needed by law
......................

You or any other person covered by this insurance must:
ensure your car is covered by a valid Department for Transport test certificate (MOT) - if one is needed by law

.......................
In the absence of a valid Department for Transport test certificate (MOT) - all cover under sections 1 & 2 is excluded.

RAC (aviva):

You must ensure that:

the car has a current MOT certificate if applicable.

cyclonebri1

Try hard don't they??

General acceptance on this has always been that if you have an MOT you think you are safe?..............................Wrong.

If you don't have an MOT you are liable for prosecution for invalidating your insurance conditions?, or leaving yourself open to non payment...................Wrong again.

The offence can be not having an MOT, as I think is agreed, but not having one does NOT invalidate the cars insurance, all the knowledgeable posters have said as such.