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

Quentin

LISAM696969 wrote: »

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

You are perpetuating the myth.

An unroadworthy car could invalidate these peoples insurance, but no MOT certificate doesn't equal an unroadworthy car (any more than having an MOT means the car will be roadworthy till it expires!)

Why is it just your "local" area that people are being "prosecuted" for driving with no insurance even though they have a policy in force?

Or did the people you are referring to have neither MOT cert nor an insurance certificate???

dacouch

I'm claiming a new world record, I sent 1st Central an email at noon today and had a reply within 5 hours, is my prize a plastic peanut ?

If your emails to 1st Central are being ignored try using the customer.relations@1stcentral.co.uk as you too might get lucky.

raskazz

sassy-one wrote: »

dacouch I have had a really hard day and really not in the mood for a debate, I have posted my views on this matter before to the OP, and have read the whole thread.

However, my advice remains unchanged as I first stated in very much detail further back in this thread.

Your insurance is invalid without a current MOT for at the time of a the accident and/or claim.

You may have your option that, thats incorrect, however I have mine.
Many insurers will request the MOT document upon any claim being made, although it doesn't always happen, if they do, it will make your claim void, end of.

Please feel free to take formal advice on the subject, read your policy small print and even contact your insurer, they will all advise you correctly.

Also, these links also clarify that without a valid current MOT test the insurance is void and null:


http://www.whatprice.co.uk/car/MOT-insurance-tax.html

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/?t=7605

Please pay special attention to the first link, as it clear states:

you are uninsured (a car without valid MOT automatically invalidates the insurance policy)

Read more: Road Tax, MOT, Insurance - What to Remember if You Own a Car
http://www.whatprice.co.uk

You, and the links, are incorrect. I am a motor insurance underwriter. Read the thread and the links to other threads.

The FSA's Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1) Rule 8.1.2R states that:

"A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:
...
(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach"

An MOT certificate proves nothing other than the vehicle was roadworthy on the time/date of the test and thus the absence of an MOT certificate does not in itself prove that a vehicle was unroadworthy, nor can the absence of an MOT certificate in itself cause or be connected to the circumstances of a claim.

To repudiate any part of the OP's claim the insurer must prove that (i) the car was unroadworthy at the time of the accident and (ii) that this unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the accident. In attempting to enforce this term contrary to ICOBS, 1st Central are not treating the OP fairly. I would also argue that 1st Central are not treating customers fairly in including a contract term which they should, if they are at all competent underwriters, know to be unenforceable.

These are facts, not opinions, so I look forward to your comments.

newbie007_2

If their frontline staff or manager doesnt know about the ombudsman rules before, they will certainly know now. I just think they are simply playing hard to get, delaying the payout because an average Joe manage to research the rules and use it against them, they hate this.

dacouch

newbie007 wrote: »

If their frontline staff or manager doesnt know about the ombudsman rules before, they will certainly know now. I just think they are simply playing hard to get, delaying the payout because an average Joe manage to research the rules and use it against them, they hate this.

Have a look at this job advert, note the date...(The pay is not all that either)

http://www.reed.co.uk/job-details?JobID=19153065

It might explain them not realising the obvious mistake they have made.

You have to love that their job adverts don't seem to ever require any relevant insurance experience http://www.reed.co.uk/job-vacancies/-st-Central-Insurance/?ProfileID=4028&ns=true&set=7

I also love the way they extol that they are part of an "international group" erm part is in England, another part is registered in Gurnsey (For tax reasons?) and another part is in Gibralter purely because the regulation of Insurers in Gibralter is no where near as strict as in the UK and you need far less capital as security.

On the positive side, the person who gets the job will no doubt have plenty of opportunity to do overtime

Judas

It has been established that insurers cant refuse to payout because a car is unroadworthy simply because no MOT exists, however, if the insurance specifically states theneed for an MOT would this still apply?

As I understand it the FOS relates to when insurers claim that the car is unroadworthy and hence the insurance void simply because no MOT is held; it doesnt necessary apply where the insurance specifically states the need for an MOT.

raskazz

Judas wrote: »

It has been established that insurers cant refuse to payout because a car is unroadworthy simply because no MOT exists, however, if the insurance specifically states theneed for an MOT would this still apply?

As I understand it the FOS relates to when insurers claim that the car is unroadworthy and hence the insurance void simply because no MOT is held; it doesnt necessary apply where the insurance specifically states the need for an MOT.

Read my post above relating to FSA ICOBS rules in relation to rejection of consumer claims on grounds of breach of warranty/condition. Any terms that purport to exclude claims on grounds of lack of valid MOT are unenforceable as lack of valid MOT can never in itself cause or contribute to a claim.

dont_be_stupid

instead of getting clever with by laws and FSA rules, its simple.
Not having a MOT does not invalidate insurance, however it is on the onus of the policy holder to prove that the car was roadworthy. If the insurance company can prove otherwise, they will not pay.
How will they prove the car was not road worthy at the time of the accident?

They cant.

Simples

raskazz

dont_be_stupid wrote: »

instead of getting clever with by laws and FSA rules, its simple.
Not having a MOT does not invalidate insurance, however it is on the onus of the policy holder to prove that the car was roadworthy. If the insurance company can prove otherwise, they will not pay.
How will they prove the car was not road worthy at the time of the accident?

They cant.

Simples

Read the thread again. The onus is not on the policyholder to prove that the car was roadworthy; the onus is on the insurer to prove that it was unroadworthy. Furthermore the insurer does not just have to prove that the vehicle was unroadworthy; they must also prove that the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the loss.

The 'simplest' way of confirming whether or not the vehicle was unroadworthy is to refer to the engineer's report submitted in respect of the vehicle, which will detail any maintenance issues. In other words, I have no idea why you are saying that "they can't".

newbie007_2

dont_be_stupid wrote: »

instead of getting clever with by laws and FSA rules, its simple.
Not having a MOT does not invalidate insurance, however it is on the onus of the policy holder to prove that the car was roadworthy. If the insurance company can prove otherwise, they will not pay.
How will they prove the car was not road worthy at the time of the accident?

They cant.

Simples

Are you 1st central in disguise? Sign up just to post this, hoping no more claims to your company because you make u your own rules?

#173 (scotsman4th) Ahh...I think I know who you are referring to lol