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

george-s2

dacouch wrote: »

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."

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.

i have read it most of it i liked it this one
(Ombudsman's ruling and that it over rides the wording they have in their policy) so what should be my next step? and i'm so grateful fo so quick respone from you all!! i was living with it for two months allready...

dacouch

George when you contact 1st Central, copy and paste the passage I gave you before, also copy and paste the following and advise them that any delays in dealing with your claim will result in you invoking this.


15. loss of use and courtesy cars

Usually the policyholder is entitled to a courtesy car only where the policy specifically provides for it. Even where the policy does provide for a courtesy car, this will usually be in limited circumstances (for example, whilst repairs are carried out by a repairer approved by the insurer) that do not apply where a vehicle is "written-off". This often comes as a surprise and disappointment to the policyholder.

Usually we only award the policyholder compensation for loss of use of the vehicle where the insurer unreasonably delays, or wrongly declines, the claim. Exceptionally, we may say that the insurer should compensate the policyholder for loss of use where:

the insurer’s overall presentation of the policy gave the consumer a legitimate expectation that a courtesy car (or compensation for loss of use) would be provided; or
the claim was badly administered (for example, the insurer initially took the car to be repaired, delayed several weeks and then decided it was a "write-off" after all).
Where we consider it fair for the insurer to compensate the policyholder for loss of use:

If the policyholder hired a car for this period, we might require the insurer to refund the hire-car charges (plus interest).
If the policyholder did not hire a car, we might require the insurer to pay compensation for other reasonable transport expenses incurred plus inconvenience caused by lack of a car.
If we award compensation for inconvenience caused by lack of a car, we tend to award around £10 per day, if it had a material effect on the policyholder, and depending on the individual circumstances – for example, whether the policyholder had "free" access to another vehicle, availability of public transport etc.

P.S I have a feeling that you may find that when you contact 1st Central they may relent or give you a call early in the week. This is because they monitor the posts about 1st Central on a daily basis and try to manage the complaints on MSE about them as posts on MSE come up very high on google when you google "1st Central". It may help if you edit the title of this thread to include "1st Central" as this will help them find it / spur them into action. (I would not be surprised if their staff know so little about the technical side of claims that they will use this thread to find relevant information on your claim eg the links to the ombudsman.

P.P.S If in the unlikely event it does go to the Ombudsman (Which can take a year) 1st Central will be charged circa £550 by the Ombudsman irrrespective of whether the win (Very unlikely unless there was an "Unroadworthy" part of your car that caused of substantially caused the accident. Feel free to make 1st Central aware that if they do not abide by the guidance from the Ombudsman that you will take the case to the Ombudsman at great cost to them

OrkneyStar

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

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.

And so every member of MSE has to agree with every of Martin's opinions ? To construct a sound argument it always helps to spell correctly.
As for being in argument with you, I am not, in all honesty I would point the mistake out be you my best friend or worst enemy ?
Anyway instead of being a money saving thread this seems to be a way round legalities thread so I will bow out for now and wish OP all the best (despite my misgivings over what he is trying to do!).

george-s2

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 belonging to a mistake....).

no probs, sorry in advance for my spelling...

george-s2

dacouch wrote: »

George when you contact 1st Central, copy and paste the passage I gave you before, also copy and paste the following and advise them that any delays in dealing with your claim will result in you invoking this.


15. loss of use and courtesy cars

Usually the policyholder is entitled to a courtesy car only where the policy specifically provides for it. Even where the policy does provide for a courtesy car, this will usually be in limited circumstances (for example, whilst repairs are carried out by a repairer approved by the insurer) that do not apply where a vehicle is "written-off". This often comes as a surprise and disappointment to the policyholder.

Usually we only award the policyholder compensation for loss of use of the vehicle where the insurer unreasonably delays, or wrongly declines, the claim. Exceptionally, we may say that the insurer should compensate the policyholder for loss of use where:

the insurer’s overall presentation of the policy gave the consumer a legitimate expectation that a courtesy car (or compensation for loss of use) would be provided; or
the claim was badly administered (for example, the insurer initially took the car to be repaired, delayed several weeks and then decided it was a "write-off" after all).
Where we consider it fair for the insurer to compensate the policyholder for loss of use:

If the policyholder hired a car for this period, we might require the insurer to refund the hire-car charges (plus interest).
If the policyholder did not hire a car, we might require the insurer to pay compensation for other reasonable transport expenses incurred plus inconvenience caused by lack of a car.
If we award compensation for inconvenience caused by lack of a car, we tend to award around £10 per day, if it had a material effect on the policyholder, and depending on the individual circumstances – for example, whether the policyholder had "free" access to another vehicle, availability of public transport etc.

P.S I have a feeling that you may find that when you contact 1st Central they may relent or give you a call early in the week. This is because they monitor the posts about 1st Central on a daily basis and try to manage the complaints on MSE about them as posts on MSE come up very high on google when you google "1st Central". It may help if you edit the title of this thread to include "1st Central" as this will help them find it / spur them into action. (I would not be surprised if their staff know so little about the technical side of claims that they will use this thread to find relevant information on your claim eg the links to the ombudsman.

P.P.S If in the unlikely event it does go to the Ombudsman (Which can take a year) 1st Central will be charged circa £550 by the Ombudsman irrrespective of whether the win (Very unlikely unless there was an "Unroadworthy" part of your car that caused of substantially caused the accident. Feel free to make 1st Central aware that if they do not abide by the guidance from the Ombudsman that you will take the case to the Ombudsman at great cost to them

you made me smile!!! thank you
but i'm so unsure, how to say it. but i know i will, tommorow. thank you again, i want to believe so much

iamana1ias

Has the OP said how the claim came about yet?

jblack_2

Did the accident involve another person/vehicle?

dacouch

OrkneyStar wrote: »

And so every member of MSE has to agree with every of Martin's opinions ? To construct a sound argument it always helps to spell correctly.
As for being in argument with you, I am not, in all honesty I would point the mistake out be you my best friend or worst enemy ?
Anyway instead of being a money saving thread this seems to be a way round legalities thread so I will bow out for now and wish OP all the best (despite my misgivings over what he is trying to do!).

It is not about away around legalities, it is the basic laws of contracts, unfair contract terms and the Ombudsman's rulings on the handling of claims. The Insurers should be aware of it but sadly there are as many Insurers who do not take the time to read the Ombudsman's rulings which in most cases use basic common sense or the use of fairness. If the Insurer had understood Insurance correctly they would have drafted their policy without the MOT requirement and trained their staff correctly. If it was not for MSE the OP would not be aware of this so it shows the power of MSE for the OP and the other two MSE members we have helped

GEEGEE8

Well, if the OP can get his money for the car then well done everyone!

OrkneyStar

dacouch wrote: »

It is not about away around legalities, it is the basic laws of contracts, unfair contract terms and the Ombudsman's rulings on the handling of claims. The Insurers should be aware of it but sadly there are as many Insurers who do not take the time to read the Ombudsman's rulings which in most cases use basic common sense or the use of fairness. If the Insurer had understood Insurance correctly they would have drafted their policy without the MOT requirement and trained their staff correctly. If it was not for MSE the OP would not be aware of this so it shows the power of MSE for the OP and the other two MSE members we have helped

I am not expecting you to explain, if you see a way round the technicalities/legalities/'whatever the correct term may be' then so be it.
You clearly feel it is acceptable for the OP to drive without a valid MOT- when would you see this as un-acceptable ? Surely there is a cut off point ?