Insurance Claim MOT expired 4 days ago

Wig

bigjl wrote: »

Some over entusiastic coppers may consider the Insurance as void at the side of the road, an impound the car. I suppose there is technically the issue that a car should be maintained properly as part of the T&C of insurance.

You might be right and it would be an inconvenience, and you would have to press for a refund or sue the constabulary for a refund.

But as other have said, they normally look at each circumstance in detail, for example bloke driving car that has had no MOT for years with bald tyres may not have their losses paid for but the 3rd party, if a 3rd party is involved would still get paid. The Insurance co might actually hold the policy holder liable and try to sue for their losses.

The no MOT part would be irrelevant, and the bald tyres would have to have contributed significantly to the cause of the accident for the insurance company to be able to withold payment.

So even though the OP acted a bit foolishly in these circumstances I would expect a payout with a small retention of the settlement, obviously I think they would inspect the car to ensure there wasn't an issue with the car that would have caused a fail at MOT, and if a fault is found and this fault was deemed the cause of the accident then I think they may retain more of the settlement.

No, then they would withold all of the payment, as long as OP's barakes are working she should be fine in that respect.

Otherwise they may put two and two together and think the driver aquaplaned, but had new tyres on, which is less likely than the driver had two bald tyres on the car, aquaplaned then put on two new tyres and got a reciept made up to show a date before the accident.

Any receipt would be valid, and they would have to prove the scenario not just assume IMHO.



OP you will be OK by the sounds of it, there will be a reduced payout offered of as little as 75% of "fully MOT'd value", which you don't have to accept, get your own valuation done if you want to. They have to pay you it's actual value not some random percentile they pluck out of the air for having no MOT.

bigjl

Wig wrote: »

You might be right and it would be an inconvenience, and you would have to press for a refund or sue the constabulary for a refund.

The no MOT part would be irrelevant, and the bald tyres would have to have contributed significantly to the cause of the accident for the insurance company to be able to withold payment..

In the context I have stated, no MOT for years and bald tyres would indicate a badly maintained car almost certainly unfit to be on the road, your T&C will state somewhere that the car must be in a roadworthy condition, a car that is two days past MOT due date might not be considered unfit for the road, unless it had an obvious failure point that had safety implications.

I remember a work colleague of my dad crashed his Capri in the rain, he drove it home and noticed that the rear tyres where almost bald, he went down to the tyre place and put on two new ones then drove up and down a few farm tracks to scuff them up.

Irrelevant you say, well make up your own mind but the person was employed by a large Insurance company at the time who also insured that car, he put the new tyres on because he knew they wouldn't fix the car as it wasn't in a roadworthy condition when it crashed.

Wig wrote: »

No, then they would withold all of the payment, as long as OP's barakes are working she should be fine in that respect.

Any receipt would be valid, and they would have to prove the scenario not just assume IMHO.

Surely tyre condition is more important than brakes in the context of a car that has aquaplaned, and no not any reciept, they would only accept proper proof, not one written on a scrap of paper, it would have to be from a proper VAT registered company. Insurance companies are well used to people trying it on, hence when a car has crashed and it has brand new tyres they will want proof that the owner isn't pulling a fast one.

Wig wrote: »

OP you will be OK by the sounds of it, there will be a reduced payout offered of as little as 75% of "fully MOT'd value", which you don't have to accept, get your own valuation done if you want to. They have to pay you it's actual value not some random percentile they pluck out of the air for having no MOT.

Unfortunately not having a current MOT does affect the market value of a car, anybody in the trade will confirm this, anybody that has been to an auction and seen a car go through without an MOT will have seen this aswell. This was the point I trying to make, they will get less than full value, not because of the lack of MOT, but because the lack of MOT will reduce the value.

It isn't unheard of for the unscrupulous to repair things and change bald tyres for new after an accident and before the loss adjuster sees it, especially if the car is drivable after a shunt, that is why there must be proper proof that the tyres where fitted pre accident, these are the kind of things a loss adjuster looks for.


The simple fact is a car shouldn't be used on the road without roadtax, being in a roadworthy condition and not used without an MOT unless on the way to or from an MOT station where the car has a prebooked appt.

The OP understands this wasn't the best thing to do, and I wouldn't advise anybody to copy these actions.

But the fact remains that a car with no MOT has a lower market value than a car with a current MOT.

It isn't a case of this is irrelevant or this isn't irrelevant, it is a simple fact the car is worth less, in the same way as a car with no service history is worth less in the event of a claim when compared to an identical car with FSH.


I expect them to pay out, but the cars market value at the time of the accident. Which will be less than if it had an MOT.

But everybody reading this thread should remember don't drive your car without an MOT, as you never know when you might have a bang, and it is just another thing to cause problems, though the OP is fortunate they aren't getting fined for no MOT, it isn't endorsable, but is probably a bigger fine than the cost of not using the car for a few days.

Enfieldian

dark_lady wrote: »

pwllbwdr - All the tyres have really good thread... 2 new and the other 2 rear tyres look new. The thread is good.

I think you will find that the correct term is actually "tread".....

dark_lady_2

Hi Everybody!

Thank you all for your feedback!It has been much appreciated...

I just thought i'd update you. I received a cheque today for £4895 which is about the same market value for my car that's been written off, I am really chuffed

Now I need a new car! lol

Wig

bigjl wrote: »

In the context I have stated, no MOT for years and bald tyres would indicate a badly maintained car almost certainly unfit to be on the road, your T&C will state somewhere that the car must be in a roadworthy condition, a car that is two days past MOT due date might not be considered unfit for the road, unless it had an obvious failure point that had safety implications.

I remember a work colleague of my dad crashed his Capri in the rain, he drove it home and noticed that the rear tyres where almost bald, he went down to the tyre place and put on two new ones then drove up and down a few farm tracks to scuff them up.

Irrelevant you say, well make up your own mind but the person was employed by a large Insurance company at the time who also insured that car, he put the new tyres on because he knew they wouldn't fix the car as it wasn't in a roadworthy condition when it crashed.

The problem you have is that you don't read, understand & take onboard what people post in reply to you. And you go on to repeat the same misunderstandings in post after post on here.

• It does not matter if you have no MOT for 3 days or 3 years, it will never, ever invalidate your insurance. It may reduce the payout in a write-off claim.
• An insurer who puts a clause in to say "car must be maintained in a roadworthy condition", cannot universally rely on that clause as a "get out" for *all* claims where the car was found to have an unroadworthy fault. The fault must be shown to have contributed significantly to the accident.

That is why your example of no MOT for 3 years was irrelevant.

Your colleague was "driving in the rain with bald tyres" see the second point above for clarification as to why he changed his tyres.

Wig wrote: »

No, then they would withold all of the payment, as long as OP's barakes are working she should be fine in that respect.

Surely tyre condition is more important than brakes in the context of a car that has aquaplaned,

Remember I was referring to "the OP being fine in that respect" because the OP has already stated her tyres are good.

and no not any reciept, they would only accept proper proof, not one written on a scrap of paper, it would have to be from a proper VAT registered company. Insurance companies are well used to people trying it on, hence when a car has crashed and it has brand new tyres they will want proof that the owner isn't pulling a fast one.

This is rubbish, if there is any dispute over the validity of a reciept, it may have to go to arbitration, but if the policy holder can reasonably show that the reciept is genuine by further evidence the insurer will have to pay out. If the policy holder cannot provide further evidence they would need a good reason why that is the case and they may lose the appeal.

Wig wrote: »

there will be a reduced payout offered of as little as 75% of "fully MOT'd value"

Unfortunately not having a current MOT does affect the market value of a car, anybody in the trade will confirm this, anybody that has been to an auction and seen a car go through without an MOT will have seen this aswell. This was the point I trying to make, they will get less than full value, not because of the lack of MOT, but because the lack of MOT will reduce the value.

Which is a point that I confirmed to be correct.

It isn't unheard of for the unscrupulous to repair things and change bald tyres for new after an accident and before the loss adjuster sees it, especially if the car is drivable after a shunt, that is why there must be proper proof that the tyres where fitted pre accident, these are the kind of things a loss adjuster looks for.

Proof is proof, no matter what form it takes.

The simple fact is a car shouldn't be used on the road without roadtax, being in a roadworthy condition and not used without an MOT unless on the way to or from an MOT station where the car has a prebooked appt.

The simple fact is that these points alone would not invalidate insurance.

The OP understands this wasn't the best thing to do, and I wouldn't advise anybody to copy these actions.

I wouldn't advise people to jump off the Severn Estuary road bridges, but I don't feel the need to say it.

But the fact remains that a car with no MOT has a lower market value than a car with a current MOT.

It isn't a case of this is irrelevant or this isn't irrelevant, it is a simple fact the car is worth less, in the same way as a car with no service history is worth less in the event of a claim when compared to an identical car with FSH.

As I confirmed, but they do have to pay it's value, whatever that may be and you don't have to accept their first offer esp if you can show the value is higher.

I expect them to pay out, but the cars market value at the time of the accident. Which will be less than if it had an MOT.

Who disagreed with you on that point? I'm curious as to why keep repeating it.

But everybody reading this thread should remember don't drive your car without an MOT, as you never know when you might have a bang, and it is just another thing to cause problems, though the OP is fortunate they aren't getting fined for no MOT, it isn't endorsable, but is probably a bigger fine than the cost of not using the car for a few days.

And don't jump off a motorway suspension bridge - at least not without a parachute.