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

iamana1ias

OrkneyStar wrote: »

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

An MOT has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring safety - your car can be unroadworthy the second you leave the MOT station.

OrkneyStar

thescouselander wrote: »

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

Hmmm, this is confusing....it is a requirement to have a valid MOT on my insurance paperwork, yet you are telling me there is a way round it ? I really wish more time was spent on finding MOT-dodgers (not necessarily you OP, more those with un-roadworthy cars who know it!) than finding ways round not having an MOT ?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

OrkneyStar wrote: »

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 beloning :Tto a mistake....).

i am in no argument with you so no need to strengthen it!

martin has also expressed his views towards spelling mistakes and members picking at them. this is explained in etiquette.

dacouch

sarahg1969 wrote: »

TBH, it would be good if the insurers DID dispose of the vehicle, because then they would have to compensate you:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/7/july-innocent-non-disclosure.htm

Good advise.

Sarah here is guidance from the Ombudsman that is also relevant to your arguement.

16. salvage of the "written-off" vehicle and contents

Once the policyholder accepts payment of the full market value, the insurer becomes the owner of the salvage. If the policyholder asks to keep the salvage, the insurer is entitled to deduct what it would have been able to sell the salvage for. This is usually not very much.

But what if the policyholder complains that the insurer (or its agent) disposed of the salvage before paying the full market-value? At this stage, the vehicle still belongs to the policyholder, and we take the view that the insurer should not have disposed of it without first obtaining the policyholder’s consent to the settlement of the claim – even if the insurer said it was only acting in the public interest by keeping a badly-damaged vehicle off the roads. In such circumstances, and unless the insurer returns the salvage, we usually award the policyholder compensation for inconvenience.

If the policyholder had personal belongings in the vehicle when the insurer disposed of it without consent, we are likely to award the cost of replacing these – usually on a like-for-like (rather than a new-for-old) basis.

sarahg1969

OrkneyStar wrote: »

Hmmm, this is confusing....it is a requirement to have a valid MOT on my insurance paperwork, yet you are telling me there is a way round it ? I really wish more time was spent on finding MOT-dodgers (not necessarily you OP, more those with un-roadworthy cars who know it!) than finding ways round not having an MOT ?

But the MOT is not an assurance that a vehicle is roadworthy.

OrkneyStar

iamana1ias wrote: »

An MOT has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring safety - your car can be unroadworthy the second you leave the MOT station.

Yes it can, but having an MOT on time increases the chances of any defect being found. Of course things go wrong with cars over and above services and MOT's but the MOT limits are put in place for a reason!
Nothing can absolutely secure complete safety but certain measures can be taken to increase it!
Wearing a seat belt does not automatically stop you from dying in a crash but it certainly reduces the chances of death and serious injury, and therefore most sensible people choose to wear them!

gordikin

OrkneyStar wrote: »

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 beloning to a mistake....).

Beloning?...'oh no, another numpty'!

sarahg1969

Thanks, dacouch. I remembered that from a claim I once dealt with that was rejected because the policyholder was drink-driving. The claim was turned down and the policy voided. The policyholder then asked for his vehicle to be returned to him, but it had been disposed of to salvage agents. There was nothing to do other than advise the insurer to settle the claim (at least in part).

OrkneyStar

sarahg1969 wrote: »

But the MOT is not an assurance that a vehicle is roadworthy.

In this case do you suggest we scrap MOT certicates then ?

An MOT is an assurance that the driver is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the roadworthiness is checked within the required time interval, and for now a requirement to drive legally, just as valid tax and insurance are.

OrkneyStar

gordikin wrote: »

Beloning?...'oh no, another numpty'!

My typing belonging was a typing error (appearing once), the posting of prosocuted was a spelling error (appearing at least twice!). Completely different things!