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

sassy_one

mrbadexample wrote: »

Sassy, I'm sorry, and mean no disrespect but it's time for you to quit while you're behind. The information you are giving is inaccurate, and however well-intentioned, is not helpful to the OP.

You have stated a number of "facts" in this thread that are simply not true. Somewhere along the line you have been quite badly misinformed.

dacouch knows what he's talking about. His advice is correct, and if the OP follows it to the letter then he should see a positive result to his claim.

The links you have given are to someone's opinion. They have no basis in law.

I'm sure you are genuinely trying to help, but in this instance there are posters who are more accurately informed.

Thank you, no offence taken.

However, it states it clearly here:

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

That failing to have a current MOT test may invalidate your insurance and it says in my policy any claim will be rejected if no Mot can be shown valid, and no, my insurance isn't come cr*p policy, its the AA!

taffy056

sassy-one wrote: »

So you are telling me, that DirectGov are also wrong??

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

Your car insurance may also be invalid

Yes they are wrong, and the big word in that sentence above is 'MAY', wouldn't be the first time that directgov has got things wrong by not giving current information out

sassy_one

taffy056 wrote: »

Yes they are wrong, and the big word in that sentence above is 'MAY', wouldn't be the first time that directgov has got things wrong by not giving current information out

Well, I have always found DirectGov very useful, although sometimes they lay out is rubbish.

I still think that, the OP has a chnace of a claim but I'm saying that in my view there is 50% chance it may be refused on this ground.

I'm sorry if my views have made anyone annoyed but in my policy it does state that without a current valid MOT test my insurance is void.
And to be honest, anyone driving without a MOT takes that risk, just as they risk any accident as a result of not having a MOT.

I'm annoyed that anyone would be driving without a MOT test as, I never have, I pay for one and at times I haven't been able to afford it but I have, and people who don't get one simply don't have an excuse not too.

Sorry, I will leave my views and option there.

Hope I haven't bothered you guys, clearly different insueres have different ways of dealing with things.

Good luck to the OP:cool:

taffy056

sassy-one wrote: »

Well, I have always found DirectGov very useful, although sometimes they lay out is rubbish.

I still think that, the OP has a chnace of a claim but I'm saying that in my view there is 50% chance it may be refused on this ground.

I'm sorry if my views have made anyone annoyed but in my policy it does state that without a current valid MOT test my insurance is void.

They can't refuse as its unfair term in their conditions

sassy-one wrote: »

And to be honest, anyone driving without a MOT takes that risk, just as they risk any accident as a result of not having a MOT.

No it doesn't, if someone was driving a car without an MOT because say it failed its emissions, would that effect the road worthiness of a car in an accident?

sassy-one wrote: »

I'm annoyed that anyone would be driving without a MOT test as, I never have, I pay for one and at times I haven't been able to afford it but I have, and people who don't get one simply don't have an excuse not too.

Sometimes people don't realise that they are, and to be honest its besides the point in this case

sassy-one wrote: »

Sorry, I will leave my views and option there.

Hope I haven't bothered you guys, clearly different insueres have different ways of dealing with things.

Good luck to the OP:cool:

Yep you are entitled to your views, and nobody should say any different, unfortunately you are wrong in this case, as a court of law has set a precedent, and regardless what it says on your policy document, a court is higher than terms and conditions on a document

Quentin

sassy-one wrote: »

it says in my policy any claim will be rejected if no Mot can be shown valid, and no, my insurance isn't come cr*p policy, its the AA!

There is one "good" thing to come from your incorrect posts regarding this matter. Anyone reading this thread will know you are just perpetuating the myth. And it's nonsense.

You are slavishly following what is stated in your policy as your reason for posting your nonsense.

Everyone should now realise that irrespective of what your insurer says in their policy, no MOT does not invalidate it!

You say your policy isnt "cr*p" - but of course it is if it tries to pull the wool over the eyes of gullible folk. (Co-incidentally the aviva's RAC policy also says this). (They must "get away" with using this worthless condition as their first line rejection of claims for a fair proportion of folk who just accept it)

If you get caught with no insurance, the penalties are severe, and have long lasting consequences as not only is the fine high, with a minimum 6 points, but your insurance premium will be sky high for years to come. Yet if you get caught with no MOT, the penalty is low (no points)!

Were your info correct, don't you think the police would do everyone caught with no MOT for also driving without insurance?

In short George in particular and everyone in general should just ignore you over this matter.

Quentin

No-one should respond to this email address with details.

Company reps aren't allowed to set up accounts like this on MSE without permission (and verification), (1st central are well aware of these rules, yet keep coming back with new MSE accounts like this), and no-one is allowed to use MSE to get personal details.

Company reps also aren't allowed to use the pm system to gain details, so beware receiving any pms from this account.

Quentin

customer_relations wrote: »

The Customer Relations Department at 1st Central Insurance Management Ltd has set up this account as a contact point for 1st Central policyholders on MSE......

If you are really from 1st Central CR, why not comment on the issues being discussed concerning your worthless condition regarding having to have an MOT otherwise the policy is invalid?

pulliptears

Anyone need the button again? I can see a couple of posts on this page alone that require it...

dacouch

Quentin wrote: »

No-one should respond to this email address with details.

I've emailed them with the links to the relevant sections from the Ombudsman and I have even (Again) given them the phone number for the technical desk at the Ombudsman which is there for Insurers to check this type of thing.

They normally reply to me George's case is "Going through the complaints process". Why they cannot simply ring the Ombudsman and get this matter sorted and avoid having to pay George so much in compensation for the unreasonable delays they have caused is beyond me. They remind me of dealing with Pegasus back in the day.

Here is my email anyway...


Regarding : George S2 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2573777

Here is the wording you are relying on in your policy wording

"(You) 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".

http://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/download/PolicyWording.pdf (Page 21)

See if you can spot a contradiction between your wording / stance and what the Ombudsman rules on this matter.

"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

If you look at section 15 of from the same link George will be claiming off you under this section for compensation for the unreasonable delays under the following.

"Usually we only award the policyholder compensation for loss of use of the vehicle where the insurer unreasonably delays, or wrongly declines, the claim. Exceptionally, we may say that the insurer should compensate the policyholder for loss of use where:

the claim was badly administered (for example, the insurer initially took the car to be repaired, delayed several weeks and then decided it was a "write-off" after all)."

The exclusions in your policy cannot and will not overule the Ombudsman so you will lose if you continue denying his valid claim unless you can provide proof that the incident was caused or substantially caused by the vehicle being unroadworthy. Having an exclusion in your policy requiring the car to have a valid MOT is pointless as it is unenforcable, you can however have a requirement that the vehicle is kept in a roadworthy condition (See section 13 of the above quote / link)

You can confirm the above by simply ringing the technical desk at the Ombudsman on 0207 964 1400 http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact/tech-advice.htm

Your making yourself look even more inept than normal by protracting this claim when you can resolve it by simply ringing the Ombudsman and finding out what your obligation is.

Regards

Dacouch

LISAM696969

Regarding your post about no MOT i know of several cases in the local area where people have been prosecuted for no insurance when there mot has invalidated it and i think sassy is correct in her assumption it is an insurance thing , if you have no mot get of the road don't try to deend your actions afterwards it could be me or someone else you run into and it has happend to me being hit by an unisured untaxed and unmoted driver you have no excuse not to remember your mot it is negligence and you shouldn't be insured if you do why should insurance companies have to foot the bill and the rest of us pay for it through our premiums because some people can't remember or can't be bothered !!!!