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

oscarward

Read this thread with interest as a 1st Central customer.

As a matter of interest I think you will find you don't need an MOT to drive on the road and your insurance is not invalidated if you do. Under certain circumstances.....

Has anyone tried getting an MOT where the previous has expired without being taken to the test centre on a trailer? I think you will find you don't need an MOT (or TAX as that is dependant upon the MOT) if you are travelling to and from (if it fails) a booked MOT appointment. However you need insurance which therefore can't be invalid as otherwise you could not get to the test legally. What the insurance would say if you had an accident as a result of bald tyres is moot?

The booked bit is important otherwise anyone could claim they were on the way to a test at a drive up centre if stopped and never get tax etc.. (Is there a 24hr test centre?, yes officer I was driving down the road @ 2am on my way to get a test:rotfl: or starting early to get a test in Aberdeen )

On a general note I had an accident Christmas Eve and spent £40 in phone calls on hold to 1st Central's accident claim line (0845 local call rate!) over the next 2 weeks ! The final icing was an email from the MD apologising for the problems getting in touch with the call centre.

After 10 days I went to an accident management company who were superb, I heartily recommend it. And yes I got a full payout from the other insurers. The only saving grace I can see for 1st Central is the call centres are in the UK. I won't deal with MoreThan or AVIVA because of their incompetent call centres in India.:eek:

You do get what you pay for.

sassy_one

It has been stated that in SOME cases makes your insurance null and void.

Therefore, my advice is, it MAY affect your insurance THEREFORE check your policy details!

dacouch

sassy-one wrote: »

It has been stated that in SOME cases makes your insurance null and void.

Therefore, my advice is, it MAY affect your insurance THEREFORE check your policy details!

There are no circumstances where not having an MOT can invalidate your insurance.

IF you policy contains an express wording requiring the car to be roadworthy and the accident was caused or substantially caused by the unroadworthyness then then in these circumstances the Insurers can decline a damage claim. However the car can have an MOT or No MOT and be unroadworthy.

Once again there are no policies in the UK that can decline a claim no matter what they say in the policy just because you have no MOT.

dacouch

mrbadexample wrote: »

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.

Any news george ?

sassy_one

dacouch wrote: »

There are no circumstances where not having an MOT can invalidate your insurance.

IF you policy contains an express wording requiring the car to be roadworthy and the accident was caused or substantially caused by the unroadworthyness then then in these circumstances the Insurers can decline a damage claim. However the car can have an MOT or No MOT and be unroadworthy.

Once again there are no policies in the UK that can decline a claim no matter what they say in the policy just because you have no MOT.

This may be the case, but me personally, I would not be happy making a claim if I had no MOT.

I believe that in, some cases, as I have explained early on in this thread, can make a policy null and void.
This may be in very small amount of cases HOWEVER it can happen, as you say.

I never said EVERY policy would be void and null, however it is a risk you have to take and weigh up when not getting an MOT, hence why the Police say, someone without an MOT doesn't normally bother getting any insurance, as what would be the point in doing such

dacouch

sassy-one wrote: »

This may be the case, but me personally, I would not be happy making a claim if I had no MOT.

I believe that in, some cases, as I have explained early on in this thread, can make a policy null and void.
This may be in very small amount of cases HOWEVER it can happen, as you say.

I never said EVERY policy would be void and null, however it is a risk you have to take and weigh up when not getting an MOT, hence why the Police say, someone without an MOT doesn't normally bother getting any insurance, as what would be the point in doing such

Once again there are no circumstances where a Motor Insurer can invalidate a policy because you have no MOT.

Just in case I'll repeat it, there is no chance a policy can be invalidated if you do not have a valid MOT.

sassy_one

dacouch wrote: »

Once again there are no circumstances where a Motor Insurer can invalidate a policy because you have no MOT.

Just in case I'll repeat it, there is no chance a policy can be invalidated if you do not have a valid MOT.

Okay, as you say, however, I have always gone by small print, as if they can't in force there small print, what's the point of them having such?

raskazz

sassy-one wrote: »

I believe that in, some cases, as I have explained early on in this thread, can make a policy null and void.

Your belief is incorrect, as has been explained over and over in the thread.

Quentin

sassy-one wrote: »

Okay, as you say, however, I have always gone by small print, as if they can't in force there small print, what's the point of them having such?

Unscrupulous insurers (eg aviva (rac policies)/swiftcover/1st central etc) have it in so that gullibles (eg sassy) will accept they are in the wrong when the small print is pointed out to them when they make a claim!

george-s2

dacouch wrote: »

I would be very surprised if even 1st Central don't realise they are in the wrong and agree to pay up as when dealing with an official complaint they are obliged to investigate the matter thoroughly. If you pointed them to the Ombudsman's guidance they should take this on board however 1st Central are really rank (And a new company so may not realise the additional costs of an Ombudsman complaint) so may chose to carry on denying.

If they do I would suggest you give the Ombudsman a ring once you get the declinature letter as in clear cut cases the Ombudsman will often ring the company and tell them they are in the wrong to avoid the cost and time an Ombudsman complaint involves.

Don't forget to hit them for compensation for causing an unreasonable delay to the claim, the amounts available are on the previous links to the Ombudsman on this thread. By hitting them in their pocket they will eventually learn that their way of business is not good in the long run

Something that may cheer you up is Insurers are very heavily regulated by the FSA, they will have to declare their Official Complaints to the FSA and a very high amount may trigger further action from the FSA which is not good for them.

Don't forget to tell your friends how rank 1st Central are and hopefully you will have learnt a lesson that the cheapest is not always the best.

hi every one. ok, i make it short... I HAVE A CHEQUE :j insurance paid me full amount - accsess fee. so i'm very happy person again :j A BIG BIG THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOU WHO SUPORTED AND HELPED ME! SPECIALY FOR -DACOUCH- AND -QUENTIN- :T:T:T can i by you a pint:beer::beer::beer:?
and for -sassy-one- you was wrong!!!you are not doing ANY good to people like me, dont take it personal, but think before you write something...(head is not for dancing, legs are):rotfl:
and something i learned from it as well, please check your MOT status more often, or put reminder on your phone, it is allot of hassle after....