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

vaio

george-s2 wrote: »

no have not yet, i was waiting for them to ring me back with an answer and i got a call today with those results i write above.
i'm going to write a letter to them today, but how can it be different answer from them what they allready told me on the phone?
and to be honest what exactly to write them, about obdusman rule?
sorry if that sounds wrong but i'm not an expert on this.

The letter doesn’t need to be complicated as long as it includes the sentences…..

“Your ongoing stance on refusing to pay out on the grounds of lack of MOT is unreasonable and against the rulings of the FOS as has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions.

If you do not resolve this matter within 14 days I will refer this matter to the FOS without further notice to you.

If you wilfully continue with your unreasonable stance and I am forced to refer the matter to the FOS I will also make an application for such other costs and compensation as are available.”

Send it recorded delivery

dacouch

George

As Viao has mentioned you must send them a letter preferably by recorded delivery.

You should head the letter "Official Complaint" by doing this they must investigate your complaint and formally respond to your complaint.

Before referring the matter to the Ombudsman you will either need to wait for their response or allow 8 weeks whichever is the sooner.

It gives you details of where to write to on page 25 of their policy wording http://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/download/PolicyWording.pdf

Your letter does not need to go into great detail, you simply need to advise them you are not happy and their stance is directly against the Ombudsman's and that the Ombudsman supercedes what is written in their policy.

dacouch

George

You could try ringing the Ombudsman, they cannot become involved until 1st Central have completed their handling of your official complaint. However they sometimes give you their opinion on the situation and it has been known for them to ring the Insurer and tell them they are in the wrong and to settle the claim.

Here are their contact details.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact/index.html#1 Use the consumer helpline, be aware that some of the frontline Ombudsman staff have as little insurance knowledge as the 1st Central staff so they may initially give you the wrong answer or say they cannot help. If your friendly and polite you hopefully will find someone who will help.

If your a complaint handler for this case for 1st Central then you could always ring their technical advice line which is staff by technically trained staff who will quickly tell you that your MOT exclusion is not worth the paper it is written on. I doubt you have ever used the number so here it is for you http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact/tech-advice.htm

P.S George your complaint might take a while to be handled... http://www.reed.co.uk/Job/Details.aspx?JobID=19153065&WT.mc_id=Indeed&utm_source=Indeed&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Indeed (Check out the "Massive" salary and no mention that you have to have any experience in Insurance)

Hammyman

george-s2 wrote: »

YES of coure i read it, but what else i have left apart from take them to court? my main argument is obdusman rule as i understand?they don't want to pay, i did not comply to they terms and conditions. that is what they saying. what else i can do?
i do not realy know.

As far as I understand the ombudsman rule is that your insurance company will pay out to a third party if you have no MOT. That doesn't affect your position as you are into contractual law and in the contract, it states clearly that no MOT means no payout for a first party claim.

vaio

Hammyman wrote: »

As far as I understand the ombudsman rule is that your insurance company will pay out to a third party if you have no MOT. That doesn't affect your position as you are into contractual law and in the contract, it states clearly that no MOT means no payout for a first party claim.

Your understanding is completely wrong, might be worth a read of the whole thread and the assorted FOS links that others have posted

laurz121

Accident occurs while car is being driven illegally = no pay out for you. Simple as that really.

Norman_Castle

If legally you are only required to have third party insurance,and the ombudsman has ruled that cars insured but being driven without an mot are still covered for third party liabilities.Can the police prevent you driving your car,or seize it as an uninsured vehicle?

custardy

Norman_Castle wrote: »

If legally you are only required to have third party insurance,and the ombudsman has ruled that cars insured but being driven without an mot are still covered for third party liabilities.Can the police prevent you driving your car,or seize it as an uninsured vehicle?

well the ombudsmans decision on insurance wouldnt over rule law
they are stating 3rd party losses should be covered in the event of an accident
the car being driven wouldnt have an MOT or insurance by the insurers T&C's

vaio

custardy wrote: »

well the ombudsmans decision on insurance wouldnt over rule law
they are stating 3rd party losses should be covered in the event of an accident
the car being driven wouldnt have an MOT or insurance by the insurers T&C's

and the insurance companies MOT & roadworthiness T&C are subject to the FOS "fair and reasonable" standard and they have ruled that the only way companies can avoid a pay out is if the car was unroadworthy AND that unroadworthiness caused the accident.

So…….

No MOT by itself = full payout

No MOT and bald tyres in accident unrelated to tyres = full payout

Bald tyres (with or without MOT) in accident like sliding into a ditch in the wet = no payout

Generally it’s very very hard to avoid payouts for third party damages and any payout will reflect the actual value of the car so a 10 year old Fiesta with no MOT because it’s rotten will probably get scrap value whereas a 4 year old BMW with nothing wrong other than a missing MOT will probably get close to normal money

mrbadexample

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.

This is also wrong. Not having a valid MOT isn't an endorsable offence:

[URL="file:///C:/Hughes/rta1988e.html#RTA1988%20S047"]Section 47(1) Road Traffic Act 1988[/URL] - level 3 fine ( level 4 passenger vehicle with more than 8 passenger seats) - summary offence It is an offence for a person to use, cause or permit to be used on a road a motor vehicle (to which this section applies) without a valid test certificate.