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

OrkneyStar

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Yes, but the the morals and ethics are not the issue. They are entirely irrelevant to the OP's question. If, indeed, he is not a troll. And to be honest, it's a bit of a boring subject to troll on.

Perhaps this is where we differ. I have had jobs in the past where I have had to advise people and stay impartial (morally, ethically, making no judgements etc). I left that job (left not due to that though!), now I just struggle with being able to help someone, when they have done something I think fundamentally wrong (and stupid). I was never saying you (or other poster) were wrong to advise them of their 'rights' but just interested in where you stood morally on it all (being as you disagreed with having no MOT but were willing to help someone who had no MOT!). I am not saying this is of relevance to the OP's course of action (be they not a troll :cool:) but was curious anyhow....maybe more a DT thread but hey it's Sunday night n'all!! x

sarahg1969

jblack wrote: »

I assume the other party is going to get hammered by their insurance as they obviously can't claim off of yours. Lucky them:mad:.

Wrong. What is it with posters on here, who offer completely wrong advice?

The OP's insurers will be duty-bound to deal with any third party claims.

Rolandtheroadie

If an MOT was necessary to validate insurance, why would some vehicles be exempt from needing an MOT? If a police car runs into me (maintained by them at an approved workshop), am I going to have to claim my own insurance because it has no MOT?

What about if I am hit by a hackney carriage or private-hire vehicle licensed by local authorities authorised to check the roadworthiness of these vehicles?

george-s2

OrkneyStar wrote: »

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!

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 ?

i think you wrong here! nobody saying that it's a good thing to drive without mot, but to know where you stand with insurance with the help of DACOUCH it is good! because now i know! without help here i would not know that!!! simple as that i had no idea what to do.

Ian_W

OrkneyStar wrote: »

Seriously does noone else see the moral/ethical issue here ? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Yes, I do.

1. Morally, ethically, and legally the OP (or troll, if Andy is right) is wrong not to have a valid MOT on his car. He should be prosecuted by the police but this is unlikely as they are unaware.

2. Morally, ethically and legally the insurers are WRONG to reject his claim on the grounds that he has no MOT. If they believe the accident was caused (fully or in part) by his car being unroadworthy then can can reject the claim, whether his car had an MOT or not.

3. Morally and ethically (and often legally) two wrongs don't make a right.

All that dacouch and sarahg have done is point out that the insurers are wrong in refusing the claim for the reasons given, perhaps they should have lied? How highly ethical and moral that would have been!!

jblack wrote:

I assume the other party is going to get hammered by their insurance as they obviously can't claim off of yours. Lucky them

Why not? The insurer can refuse their insured's claim because they didn't comply with the contract. They can't decline a third party claim on those grounds. Of course that assumes the OP is at fault and not the other party when that is far from clear.

george-s2

dacouch wrote: »

George if you have problems with 1st Central tommorow try sending a personal message to Tom or Robin.

Here are links with posts from them, click on their name (In blue next to their post) and it gives you the option to "Send a personal message", click on this and send them a link to the first page of this thread. Advise them you are aware of your rights and will invoke the loss of use charges as laid down by the Ombudsman for unreasonable delays in handling your claim and that you expect them to handle the claim in the absence of good evidence that the unroadworthyness of your car caused or substantially contributed to the accident.

I have a feeling that when they read the thread they will pick up the phone and tell their claims staff to start handling the claim.

great thank you! so TOM and ROBIN working for 1st central? :eek:

dacouch

george-s2 wrote: »

great thank you! so TOM and ROBIN working for 1st central? :eek:

Yes they do, they have the "Painting the Forth Bridge" job of trying to sort out the numerous online complaints about 1st Central.

If someone wants to talk about ethics, 1st Central do not cover their policyholders to drive other cars as it means they can offer cheaper policies. However they [STRIKE]deliberately[/STRIKE] do not make this clear to their customers so many of their policy holders drive around uninsured because they make the mistake of assuming they are covered by this as the vast majority of Insurers cover it. This was pointed out to them 13 months ago and they agreed on MSE to review making this major exclusion clearer to their customers but they made the [STRIKE]business[/STRIKE] decision to keep concealing it when it is relatively easy to make it clear to their customers.

To date their have been at least one MSE contributer who received a conviction (the best part of a year after they agreed to review the matter) for driving with no insurance as a direct result of their lack of action.

That in my opinion is a matter of ethics

See Tom1stcentral's post number 4 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1669745 and post 64 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1669745

Here is one poster who drove uninsured post 67 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1669745 or post 148 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1669745

Note their FAQs http://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/faq.aspx the ideal place to mention they exclude driving other cars is above Question two or Question 8. They make no mention and these two questions / answers could make people think they are covered.

ArsenalFC

Goodluck to OP with the claim. I've read this and other without MOT threads with interest because I have learnt something new.

Dacouch/sarahg has been very helpful to fellow mser here and also make people aware that insurers cannot impose any terms they want, they have to abide to the ombudsman.

But the thread is litter will people giving out wrong info, being assumptious etc. People who dont know need to stop posting rubbish info and stop the argument....moral/ethical issues....what a nonsense.

Hammyman

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

you cannot be prosocuted for no mot!

Actually, you can. I was 20 years ago in Magistrates Court.

OrkneyStar

I have read lots of the replies (even quoted some but having quoting problems today ).
Suffice to say I don't think the posters advising OP are wrong to advise him (did not ever say I did), all I asked was did they not feel it difficult ? They both answered (sufficiently lol) and tbh I don't think it takes OP's situation any further with other people also deciding to answer for them/pass comment.
OP sorry again to take off on such a tangent but I hope you get a good result, and for heavens sake keep the MOT up to date from now on .