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

george-s2

jblack wrote: »

Did the accident involve another person/vehicle?

yes it was another can involved, i did not stop in time... was not over speeding about 30mph, but that was enough..

sarahg1969

OrkneyStar wrote: »

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 ?

But what you don't understand is that it's not a "way round" the technicalities. It IS the technicalities. The OP will be relying on what he has contractually agreed with his insurers. he's not trying to find a way out of it; they are.

george-s2

i will updat as soon i'll speak with 1st central insurance

OrkneyStar

sarahg1969 wrote: »

But what you don't understand is that it's not a "way round" the technicalities. It IS the technicalities. The OP will be relying on what he has contractually agreed with his insurers. he's not trying to find a way out of it; they are.

So you are telling me that it is not a requirement to have a valid MOT for a car to be insured ? What about tax, can we forget that too ? Can you answer the question I asked about not having an MOT, is there a point that you would consider it un-acceptable to push the technicalities (a timescale say ) ? (I did ask dacouch but welcome an answer from you too!)

dacouch

OrkneyStar wrote: »

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 ?

I have not said that I agree with driving without a valid MOT, I'm simply using my Insurance knowledge to advise the OP to have his claim settled which as Sarah has just pointed out is his contractual right.

If the other MSE members and I with knowledge in this area had not posted then the OP may have believed the posters including you that had advised him that the lack of an MOT made his policy invalid which was incorrect advice.

sarahg1969

OrkneyStar wrote: »

So you are telling me that it is not a requirement to have a valid MOT for a car to be insured ? What about tax, can we forget that too ? Can you answer the question I asked about not having an MOT, is there a point that you would consider it un-acceptable to push the technicalities (a timescale say ) ? (I did ask dacouch but welcome an answer from you too!)

I do not feel it is acceptable to drive without a current MOT, no. However, the OP has asked for advice on where he stands with his insurers. And he has received advice about how to deal with his contractual rights from people in the know. The expired MOT is a red herring, really, and opinions about that just cloud the issue.

Paradigm

OrkneyStar wrote: »

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 ?

I would never advocate anyone driving without a MOT but when they print this on the front

Warning A test certificate is not evidence that the vehicle is in satisfactory condition

Kinda makes you wonder "whats the bloody point then" don't you think?

Sorry, carry on

dacouch

Orkneystar I would be surprised if your own motor policy has a requirement that the car has a valid MOT as it is relatively rare because most Insurers take the time to read the Ombudsman's rulings. It tend to be the cheap and not cheerful Insurers eg 1st Central and Quinn etc who put the MOT requirement in.

It is not a requirement in any motor policy for the car to be taxed for the policy to be valid.

Should you ever need to refer to the Ombudsman for your own claim you will find he applies common sence, the unfair contract laws and the principle of what is fair.

OrkneyStar

dacouch wrote: »

I have not said that I agree with driving without a valid MOT, I'm simply using my Insurance knowledge to advise the OP to have his claim settled which as Sarah has just pointed out is his contractual right.

If the other MSE members and I with knowledge in this area had not posted then the OP may have believed the posters including you that had advised him that the lack of an MOT made his policy invalid which was incorrect advice.

OK second para. first- yes this has been pointed out already and I not debating that. I was curious about where your ethics stood though!
As it reads you are stating that while you don't agree with driving without an MOT you are willing to advise someone who has done such a thing, on how to get the insurance to pay out (because contractually they should)....kinda like a lawyer being against murder but defending a murderer anyway (I realise MOT evasion is a big leap to murderer :eek:, but trying to understand the motivation behind your wanting to help, rather than how you are able to help). For me to help in this way I would have to feel that MOT evasion is acceptable and it seems you don't!

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I do not feel it is acceptable to drive without a current MOT, no. However, the OP has asked for advice on where he stands with his insurers. And he has received advice about how to deal with his contractual rights from people in the know. The expired MOT is a red herring, really, and opinions about that just cloud the issue.

Yes where he stands with insurers is the central issue, I just thought the whole thing also raised the issue of the fact that perhaps we are condoning him not having an MOT by helping him ?
Perhaps I should be more impartial ?

sarahg1969

It''s not a case of MOT evasion, though. He's not being prosecuted; his insurers are just refusing to adhere to their side of a contract. Which, in reality, they are not entitled to do.