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

GEEGEE8

sarahg1969 wrote: »

No. What makes you think that?

Just what I thought, hence the question mark at the end.

george-s2

OrkneyStar wrote: »

Well it was my understanding that a valid MOT is needed to drive a car legally in the shows the technicalities and the only legal exceptions!
The thing is, perhaps the lady who gave you tax should have noticed invalid MOT, but the bottom line is it is up to YOU to check it, and up to YOU to renew it on time, thus avoiding current problem!

i do understand it's up to me to check it, i have another two cars and never missed it!, but this one i had... i feel guilty and bad believe me!

thescouselander

Please please can we have a sticky about this. No MOT DOES NOT mean no insurance. We went through this only a few months ago with that other chap and he got paid out in the end when he pushed the insurance company.

OP - have a look at this thread and them PM showmedamoney - he had an excellent letter he used to get the insurance to pay out.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2353569

gordikin

GEEGEE8 wrote: »

Without an MOT is your insurance not valid, and therefore you could be prosecuted for no insurance?

This is not true.

zzzLazyDaisy

Driving without an MOT is a criminal offence and punishable by a fine of up to £1000.

Just because it does not carry penalty points or disqualification (on its own) does not mean it is a civil matter.

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimertotable.htm

dacouch

george-s2 wrote: »

i rang them up and told them that i have no mot, apart what i have send to them. and that i have bought a taxes few days before. so been told to get a replacment from any mot station. but i know for fact that i have no mot, i have checked online. so only one chance i think i have, to ask to get my car back, which they probaly haven't got, it's on the way to china for scrap metal i think...:o

Here is the Ombudsman's (Even a rubbish off shore company like 1st Central have to abide by the Ombudsman) ruling on the lack of an MOT. Which as a very rough summary is basically that if there is no MOT then the Insurer still has to deal with the claim providing that the accident was not caused or was substantially caused by the car being "Unroadworthy" (Note not having an MOT does not neccessarily mean the car is unroadworthy).

However not having an MOT can mean the Insurers can reduce the amount they pay you if your car is a write off, they will typically give you the "Trade Value".

Here is a quote from the relevant section from the Ombudsman.

"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 Please read the whole of the link as it also contains other helpful information about a written off car.

Your problem is that 1st Central are really really slow at claims, they are a new company and most of their staff have little experience as they are the cheapest. To get to someone at 1st Central who actually knows the Ombudsman's ruling and that it over rides the wording they have in their policy could take you some time.

They have numerous threads on the Insurance Forum of MSE about how poor their customer service and claims service is. If you have a look on the Insurance forum you will see some of their senior staff have profiles. There is Tom1stcentral (Whose messages are dealt with by Chelsea) and Robinpegg (Who is their Head of Marketing aka chief turd polisher). They both respond to personal messages sent to them through MSE.

We have helped two MSE members who were in the same position as you get their claims settled in full. I'll find the relevant threads for you and post links to them.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

OrkneyStar wrote: »

prosocuted....explain that word please ? or do you mean prosecuted ? :cool:

now now we need not get into spelling mistake's here;).

OP they cannot scrap your vehicle untill the claim is settled.

OrkneyStar

george-s2 wrote: »

i do understand it's up to me to check it, i have another two cars and never missed it!, but this one i had... i feel guilty and bad believe me!

Not wanting to make you 'feel bad'- it is just that an MOT is an important thing (not just to make the police etc happy) but for the safety of you and everyone else in the car and on the road. Lets hope you get something sorted but please never make this mistake again!!! x

OrkneyStar

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

now now we need not get into spelling mistake's here;).

OP they cannot scrap your vehicle untill the claim is settled.

Correct spelling strengthens an argument- as soon as I see bad spelling I think 'oh no, another numpty', whether that be true or not! Anyway OP, sorry to go off at a tangent!
(For the record in this case it would be 'mistakes' not 'mistake's'....we are not talking about something belonging to a mistake....).

dacouch

Scouselander has kindly posted a link to one of the recent cases we helped receive settlement of his claim without a current MOT, here is a link to the other case https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1887019 (I've linked to the last page so you can see the result but feel free to read the previous pages which include plenty of posters advising that no MOT equals an invalid insurance policy).