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

Rolandtheroadie

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

So they BOTH have to prove something thats nearly impossible to prove. Thats just stupid.
Have you just registered as another user to try and back up something stupid?

vaio

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

the obvious example is bald tyres.....

Slide into a ditch on the outside of a corner in the dry because you were going to fast and you'll get a payout

Do the same in the wet because your tyres were bald and didn't grip and they wouldn't pay

Quentin

dont_be_stupid wrote: »

How will they prove the car was not road worthy at the time of the accident?

What has an MOT certificate got to do with answering your question?

How does a MOT certificate "prove" anything (other than at the time of the test the car passed)?

dont_be_stupid

it proves that the car was road worthy when the MOT was done. Not subsequently. Not the day after. At the time it was done.
Do I sound like first central? They will pay out, because they cant prove that the car was not roadworthy at the time of the accident

Quentin

newbie007 wrote: »

1st the onus is on the policy holder to prove the car is in roadworthy condition, then they will pay out, ......there are people that specialise in these things for roadworthness.

Why should he go to that expense? Have you read the thread?

newbie007_2

1st the onus is on the policy holder to prove the car is in roadworthy condition, then they will pay out, ......there are people that specialise in these things for roadworthyness. Go and troll elsewhere....

(quentin I was referring to 'dont be stupid' should of quoted it

taffy056

How can the policy holder prove the car is roadworthy ? If that was the case every driver would have to be a qualified mechanic . Also its up to the insurance company to prove it should not have been on the road, you are innocent until proven guilty.

raskazz

dont_be_stupid wrote: »

They will pay out, because they cant prove that the car was not roadworthy at the time of the accident

Why do you say that? Have you inspected the OP's car personally? Please stop talking nonsense. All that we (the people who know what they are talking about) are saying is that they cannot reject the OP's claim purely on the grounds of lack of valid MOT at the time of the accident.

Quentin

newbie007 wrote: »

1st the onus is on the policy holder to prove the car is in roadworthy condition, then they will pay out, ......there are people that specialise in these things for roadworthyness. Go and troll elsewhere....

For the sake of George..... (trolls shouldn't really be fed!)

There is no onus on the policyholder at all to prove this. It is up to the insurer to prove this if they want to decline the claim.

dont_be_stupid

yeah ok. we will see if they will pay out. they will. you can get on with it. I have a life