91 Days to State "NO MOT, NO PAYOUT"

Wig

Hammyman wrote: »

OK...

Under contractual law, the contract of insurance states no MOT, no payout. The contract wasn't adhered to, hence no payout.

As regards the law, insurance companies have to pay out to third parties when there is no MOT (previously they refused to and it was this that was ruled on) and then they usually recover the money from the policyholder if they're in breach of the contract. Previously they'd have washed their hands completely and you'd have to sue the person responsible yourself.

An insurance policy cannot be nullified because of a breach of condition unless that breach of condition caused or contributed to the claim. There's no way that no MOT can cause a claim so you are wrong on this. And you will be shown to be wrong hopefully when the OP comes to tell us all what the outcome was when this is all over for his son. There is also the other thread pointed to by Mcjordi and numerous other examples on the internet.
Reduced payout - yes but only to what the car is actually worth, they cannot reduce the value of the car. The car without an MOT has got a value, whatever that is they will have to pay.
No payout - no way.

P.S. I would have the car independently valued.

And If the storage yard sold/took parts off the car without authorisation of salvage from the insurer. Then OP has a claim against the insurer who are liable especially as Zenith admit that the yard is their agent and they admit that the vehicle should not have been tampered with, any contract you had was with Zenith it would be for Zenith to recover their losses from the salvage yard.

• Letters asking for suitable compensation/replacement value & fitting,
• followed by letter of official complaint and that non satisfaction will result in an ombudsman referral
• followed by ombudsman complaint if needed

P.S. I was with a broker once (ONCE!) and in the event of a claim the jumped up little pr!#k point blank refused to return my calls. That was my first and last year of insurance through that broker and I would never use another broker. They and the insurer were so useless I ended up withdrawing the claim and I dealt with the third party insurer myself to receive a full settlement.

Always go direct to the insurer yourself for a quote and to buy the policy.

Hammyman

molerat wrote: »

Fortunately, as has been proven by several posters on here, the insurance regulators take an entirely different view of that unfair contract clause so please stop repeating that unfounded drivel.

Please feel free to post a link from the said body.

mikey72

Hammyman wrote: »

Please feel free to post a link from the said body.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#13

13. roadworthiness

as posted by dacouch earlier

neilmcl

Hammyman wrote: »

Please feel free to post a link from the said body.

Feel free to read the whole thread, in particular post #4.

raskazz

Hammyman wrote: »

Please feel free to post a link from the said body.

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1

"A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:

...

(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach"

Wig

Hammyman wrote: »

Please feel free to post a link from the said body.

Hammyman, you posted on this other thread too
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2573777

You posted at #134
Read post #201

LOL I must say that was a most rollocking ROFLOLING read, I resisted the temptation to reply to the thread because it would have just bumped it up. Loved the comment by someone "Sassy one's EPIC FAIL" :rotfl:

Sassy one changed her tune towards the end, but I'll reply here to a couple of things on that thread

Sassy one said Police will seize a car without mot/tax this is not true, police only seize cars BEING DRIVEN without insurance and or being driven without a licence or BEEN SEEN to be driven (or if the car is causing a hazard). Police sometimes work in tandem with the DVLA at roadblocks if a car has no Tax they offer the driver to buy a tax disc, if the driver pays up they can go on their way if the driver can't pay for whatever reason, then the DVLA has the power to tow the vehicle - not the Police...... the DVLA. I think Sassy must have seen a "Police & DVLA roadblock" on her "cops with cameras" show and got confused.

Show me da money said... "car rolled back when parked no MOT req'd when parked." - That would depend where it was parked if it was parked in a public place then it requires an MOT whether on the road or off the road i.e. in a public car park or a private car park to which the public have general access to. If it was parked on your driveway then correct, no MOT req'd. If in a private car park with no general public access then no MOT req'd

junkimunki

custardy wrote: »

Im not talking about insurance
the OP seems to think that what they are describing proves something about intent and MOT
so since my car has never missed an MOT.I can now not bother and say oh it was an honest mistake guv as i never missed one before?
The OP posts as if her son has sainthood status through running a car and keeping a clean licence

:mad: No I dont think my son has a sainthood status at all, I downloaded the database history of his Mot , to prove 2 things in particular,
A] That since he owned the car he has always diligently kept the car in a "roadworthy condition" as per policy wording and has always kept within the law, whilst driving the vehicle.
B] The history can prove that at every Mot, his vehicle has had a pass at the time of testing, and has not had to return to be retested, which is obviously proof that the car has always been kept in a roadworthy condition, calculations also show from this database that since Sept 08/2006 up to and including the day of his accident the vehicle has only done 14,591 miles in total which is minimal, for the amount of time he has owned it.

His insurance premiums were based on an average 10,000 miles per year for Social domestic and pleasure including commuting to and from one place of business.

Having had my say here I will however state that it is true when you here of all the accidents occurring in high performance cars with young drivers especially the males, at least 85% of people sounds like you may be one of them, automatically think "BOY RACER", but my son has proven that not all young drivers should be tarred with the same brush.:T:T

junkimunki

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

If there was an accident why are the police not charging him with not having a valid MOT?

If you had bothered to read all and not just some of what I have written you would have found that: No Other Vehicle was involved in the accident, no one was injured at all, the only casualty was the vehicle itself, having pushed the drivers wing onto the actual wheel stopping the wheel from rotating.

I will state however that a policeman did stop and offer to call him a tow truck,after asking my son what had happened, but stated that he would be better to call his insurance company as he had fully comprehensive Insurance.

The accident happend not through speed or boy racer style antics, it was quite simply a case of human error.

junkimunki

custardy wrote: »

Im not talking about insurance
the OP seems to think that what they are describing proves something about intent and MOT
so since my car has never missed an MOT.I can now not bother and say oh it was an honest mistake guv as i never missed one before?
The OP posts as if her son has sainthood status through running a car and keeping a clean licence

To ERR is human, which proves my son is human maybe your not :rotfl::rotfl::T

junkimunki

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

So what if it did? That's what insurance is for.

:jThanx for that one Mark, but it was obvious that the policeman did not think speed caused it , otherwise he would have questioned my son further, when asked what had happened, my son quite clearly explained that he was returning from work, and the accident happened quite simply because of human error, having asked and made sure my son was ok he drove off.