Sold a car by RIGHT CAR with no MOT - where do I stand?

funkycoldribena

fivetide wrote: »

Again, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothing at all. I'm sure that's in the forum rules somewhere.

Ok the OP made a mistake. It happens. They are asking for advice not abuse.

5t.

Whilst I totally agree with what you're saying,doesnt what you've written in your signature seem a tad hypocritical??

getmore4less

wilykit wrote: »

I got it MOT'd today by Right Car and incurred no cost. Sorted.

Any advisories?

fivetide

funkycoldribena wrote: »

Whilst I totally agree with what you're saying,doesnt what you've written in your signature seem a tad hypocritical??

I had to ask the MSE Forum team to stop him following me about and harassing me in PMs then he came back and tried again despite the fact he's on the ignore list.

5t.

londonTiger

dacouch wrote: »

Not having an MOT does not invalidate an insurance policy

Until you get into a serious accident which will cause the insurance company millions to pay out and they will investigate and discover the car has no MOT. Then they will refuse to pay out saying that your car was "unsafe to be on the road"

JQ.

londonTiger wrote: »

Until you get into a serious accident which will cause the insurance company millions to pay out and they will investigate and discover the car has no MOT. Then they will refuse to pay out saying that your car was "unsafe to be on the road"

No they won't. Feel free to do a search on here and you'll see this topic comes up at least once a week and not having an MOT does not invalidate your insurance.

londonTiger

JQ. wrote: »

No they won't. Feel free to do a search on here and you'll see this topic comes up at least once a week and not having an MOT does not invalidate your insurance.

sure it doesn't, the insurance company is more than happy to take your money and give you a certificate, and the computer will show that you have insurance so the police won't pull you over.. I agree with that.

BUT

Say if you kill a motorcyclist, and you're looking at a £1M payout and you have no MOT. The insurance company will dig hard to find any fault, and if they discover you have not MOT. You are F***ED. They will claim that the accident was caused by driver negligence to maintain the car to a safe standard. Therefore the insurance company is not liable for payouts.

Sgt_Pepper_2

londonTiger wrote: »

sure it doesn't, the insurance company is more than happy to take your money and give you a certificate, and the computer will show that you have insurance so the police won't pull you over.. I agree with that.

BUT

Say if you kill a motorcyclist, and you're looking at a £1M payout and you have no MOT. The insurance company will dig hard to find any fault, and if they discover you have not MOT. You are F***ED. They will claim that the accident was caused by driver negligence to maintain the car to a safe standard. Therefore the insurance company is not liable for payouts.

And when a police vehicle examiner finds no faults with the vehicle where does that leave them?

dacouch

londonTiger wrote: »

sure it doesn't, the insurance company is more than happy to take your money and give you a certificate, and the computer will show that you have insurance so the police won't pull you over.. I agree with that.

BUT

Say if you kill a motorcyclist, and you're looking at a £1M payout and you have no MOT. The insurance company will dig hard to find any fault, and if they discover you have not MOT. You are F***ED. They will claim that the accident was caused by driver negligence to maintain the car to a safe standard. Therefore the insurance company is not liable for payouts.

Some Insurers do indeed say in their policies that the policy is subject to the car having an MOT. These are entirely unenforcable and even if they were, under the Road Traffic Act the Insurer would still be liable for the third party claim.

Insurers can only decline a claim if the car is "Unroadworthy" AND the unroadworthyness of the car directly caused or significantly caused.by the car being "Unroadworthy" Note the abscence of an MOT does not mean a car is unroadworthy.

If there's no MOT an Insurer can reduce a write off cars value as a car without an MOT is worth less than one with. They generally reduce the pay out to the "Trade" value.

The above is how the Ombudsman deals with this situation.

In addition regulation of Insurers prevents them refusing a claim if a "Warranty" eg Must have certain locks and use them has not affected the claim eg the actual claim was for a frozen (Burst)pipe

Joe_Horner

londonTiger wrote: »

sure it doesn't, the insurance company is more than happy to take your money and give you a certificate, and the computer will show that you have insurance so the police won't pull you over.. I agree with that.

BUT

Say if you kill a motorcyclist, and you're looking at a £1M payout and you have no MOT. The insurance company will dig hard to find any fault, and if they discover you have not MOT. You are F***ED. They will claim that the accident was caused by driver negligence to maintain the car to a safe standard. Therefore the insurance company is not liable for payouts.

No, the Road Traffic Act says that they can't refuse liability for third part claims because of vehicle condition (including lack of an MOT), even if they put a clause in the contract saying that they do.

If they've included such a clause they MUST still pay out for third party damage, including injury / death even if the condition of the car is material to the accident. But they can then sue you for what they've paid.

They CAN invalidate optional cover, such as fire / theft / own damage, but NOT third party liability. So even without an MOT you still have the insurance cover that the law requires but you'll face a civil claim by the insurers which will probably bankrupt you.

You'll also find future insurance very difficult and expensive.

hartcjhart

fivetide wrote: »

I had to ask the MSE Forum team to stop him following me about and harassing me in PMs then he came back and tried again despite the fact he's on the ignore list.

5t.

ERRMMM excuse me,BUT I have never 'followed you' about,nor harrased you or have I ever PMd you
perhaps you would like to wind your neck in and apologise,becaus it could be read that you were reffering to me