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

dacouch

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

Surely if you work for a Direct Insurer you must understand the rules of Insurance. May I suggest you bother to read the whole thread or have a look on the Ombudsman's website. If the direct insurer you work for are denying claims solely because there is no current MOT then they are naughty...

Freddie_Snowbits

Got to admit, the Bo11ock5 button is a good idea.

As for MOT, Freda forgot this once and some pillock smacked into our car! Other guy was at fault, police attended and car was repaired no problems.

So shut it.

Still confused. read this

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022108

And to reiterate

It is generally an offence to use on a public road, a vehicle of testable age that doesn’t have a current test certificate

george-s2

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

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My MOT was out of date by 5 months and I got paid in full with a 5% deduction.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?

exact wording: in the absence of the valid department of transport test serificate(MOT)- all cover under sectios 1&2 is excluded.

which means everything.

george-s2

george-s2 wrote: »

exact wording: in the absence of the valid department of transport test serificate(MOT)- all cover under sectios 1&2 is excluded.

which means everything.

or in another place: WHAT IS NOT COVERED
loss of or damage to the car if it is not covered by a valid department of transport test sertificate(MOT) , if one is needed by law.

Quentin

george-s2 wrote: »

exact wording: in the absence of the valid department of transport test serificate(MOT)- all cover under sectios 1&2 is excluded.

which means everything.

No - they would like you to believe that - and presumably get away with it more times than not!

sho_me_da_money

Dacouch/TheScouselander,

Given the circumstances of this case, will my letter/argument be useful for the OP? The reason I ask is because:

1. My policy wording was open to interpretation, whereas the OPS policy clearly states the absence of a valid MOT invalidates the policy.

2. My car was not involved in a direct accident, rather, it was in a parked state when it rolled back and crashed (MOT not required when the vehicle is parked - again this point favoured me)

I have no doubt the OP can win this one if he pushes, but I wonder if my letter will be of any use?

Either way I will send it to him so he can get a few ideas.

dacouch

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Dacouch/TheScouselander,

Given the circumstances of this case, will my letter/argument be useful for the OP? The reason I ask is because:

1. My policy wording was open to interpretation, whereas the OPS policy clearly states the absence of a valid MOT invalidates the policy.

2. My car was not involved in a direct accident, rather, it was in a parked state when it rolled back and crashed (MOT not required when the vehicle is parked - again this point favoured me)

I have no doubt the OP can win this one if he pushes, but I wonder if my letter will be of any use?

Either way I will send it to him so he can get a few ideas.

The circumstances of the claim make little difference, the Insurers cannot deny a claim just because there is no MOT. The Ombudsman is very clear that they can only deny a claim if there is "Good evidence" that the claim was caused or substantially contributed to by the car being unroadworthy

thescouselander

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Dacouch/TheScouselander,

Given the circumstances of this case, will my letter/argument be useful for the OP? The reason I ask is because:

1. My policy wording was open to interpretation, whereas the OPS policy clearly states the absence of a valid MOT invalidates the policy.

2. My car was not involved in a direct accident, rather, it was in a parked state when it rolled back and crashed (MOT not required when the vehicle is parked - again this point favoured me)

I have no doubt the OP can win this one if he pushes, but I wonder if my letter will be of any use?

Either way I will send it to him so he can get a few ideas.

I cant remember exactly what was in the letter but I'm sure you had parts referring to various cases and ombudsman's rulings on similar disputes. So at least some of it might be relevant.

dacouch

I would just keep it simple refer 1st Central to the Ombudsmans "Technical Note on vehicle valuations and then copy and paste section 13 as it is very clear that they cannot apply the MOT rule.

george-s2

dacouch wrote: »

I would just keep it simple refer 1st Central to the Ombudsmans "Technical Note on vehicle valuations and then copy and paste section 13 as it is very clear that they cannot apply the MOT rule.

i'll ring them 2mor. as it was no call back from them today, if no luck have to send pm to Tom to see if that helps