How does Expired MOT affect insurance claim?

Kempty

Car written off - no-one else involved.
MOT 6 months out of date (mitigating circumstances but then who hasn't?).
Although insurance company "sympathise" they have repudiated the claim and upheld the decision after I've used their complaints procedure.
They also pointed out the obvious, that it's illegal to drive without an MOT. (Didn't think they had a Policing role.)
Should I get back to them to say the FSA guidelines point out that they can't use lack of MOT as a reason unless they show that this was a cause of the incident ( which it wasn't)?

Or should I go to the Financial Services Ombudman?
Any experience of this?
Thanks,
Kempty

Quentin

Kempty wrote: »

Should I get back to them to say the FSA guidelines point out that they can't use lack of MOT as a reason unless they show that this was a cause of the incident ( which it wasn't)?

Yes - though refer them to FOS.

All they can do to your detriment is adjust the value of your car because it has no MOT.

Jimmy1

I'd like to clear this one up, because there's a lot of scaremongering about this issue. I was involved in a very serious RTA where an oncoming lorry jack-knifed on an icy road and ploughed into my car as I was driving. The driver admitted to the police officer attending that he had lost control of the lorry and had hit me.

It was only a few days later, when the police asked me to visit my local station with insurance certificate and MOT certificate that I realised my MOT was one month out of date. I absolutely freaked out, and began visiting sites like this to find out what would happen. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who are guessing what happens in this situation and acting like pseduo lawyers / assessors. They say things like "your insurance policy will be invalid if you do not have a valid MOT - sorry!" or they say "most insurance policies don't actually state that there must be a MOT, but that the car must be roadworthy".

Neither of those two statements are true. The truth is that my policy stated that in the event of you not having a valid MOT "we MAY invalidate your policy", and I'd imagine many other policies say something similar. This wording is there to strongly prompt all of us to have a MOT - not having it would just be slack and open to abuse.

The fact that the lorry driver could have killed me probably helped my cause, but the police have so far been totally relaxed about the situation (I've not heard anything from the investigating officer) and in the event the insurer has decided to deduct 10% from a settlement that they had already agreed to increasing from their previous offer.

Ok, this is just my situation, and the weight of evidence is obviously hugely in my favour. You probably can't ask for more than the third party confessing guilt to a police officer attending the scene, and my car was in absolutely A1 condition (new, high-quality tyres) and a regular service record. To be honest, I over-serviced the car to make it as safe as possible, so forgetting a poxy MOT was ironic to say the least.

And finally, this is a very important point to remember, and has been made by many others here and in other places: an MOT only indicates roadworthiness on the day of the test. How many people have valid MOTs but are driving around on bald tyres for example?

I won't ever forget to MOT my car ever again, and it's worth pointing out that I was apologetic to both the police and insurer and said: "I have no excuse, but here is my reason. I have recently begun regularly commuting to work on the train and have used the car very rarely which is why I overlooked the MOT."

Honesty, politeness, and supporting circumstances (and evidence) helped me win the day. Of course, this is just my experience, and might be different for someone else.

Quentin

Jimmy1 wrote: »

my policy stated that in the event of you not having a valid MOT "we MAY invalidate your policy", and I'd imagine many other policies say something similar. This wording is there to strongly prompt all of us to have a MOT - not having it would just be slack and open to abuse.

If you read up on this issue you will see that it makes no difference what your insurer says about they "may invalidate your policy" if you have no MOT - it's an unenforceable clause, put in by an unscroupulous insurer who would take advantage of a policyholder's ignorance and hope to get away with enforcing it by way of the ignorance.

In your case, you should have been dealing with the third party insurers anyway, not claiming off your own policy.

vaio

^^
What he said

The rules are

MOT doesn’t matter, the only consequence of not having one is a possible reduction in a total loss pay out to reflect the fact that a car without MOT is worth less than one with.

Roadworthiness comes into it in that they can reject a claim if the car is unroadworthy AND that unroadworthiness caused or substantially contributed to the loss.

Also, as he said, if you have a clear cut incident where the TP admits fault then you are way better off dealing direct with the third party insurance company than claiming on you own insurance

JohnHamer1977

Is it FSA guidelines or FSO?
Does anyone have a link showing the guidlines to support this please?
Thanks

dacouch

13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.

In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#13

riverboat2001

My two penneth worth, my vehicle is parked on my drive, sorned and insured!

The mot has expired, but the insurance is still valid!

JohnHamer1977

thanks dacouch - my car has been stolen and I have found the mot was due nov 2010... it's now feb 2011 I'm gutted
it's no excuse but I've had a hell of a time, relationship breakdown, fighting for custody of my kids (I have residence at the moment) I was in hospital and I've have been busy trying complete a diploma at college... the car mot would have been written on the calander, the ex bleedin took it!!! Like I said, no excuses just circustances letting an mot lapse is easily done, just glad to se I'll get at least something for my car.

Kempty

Thanks again Quentin.
Having been contacted by the FSO, Churchill Insurance have finally agreed to settle my claim, reversing their original ( and, later, upheld ) repudiation on the grounds of my MOT being 6 months out of date.
It has been 8 MONTHS since the accident! I guess they think most people will accept what they say or give up as they try their best to string the complaints process out.
Although I am tenacious your reply came at a time when others were telling me to just drop it and encouraged me to carry on.
They have valued the car at more than I paid for it so even after reductions/excess I'm up financially. They have also paid £100 pounds compensation (paltry, considering the time I've put into this).
Thanks, too, for the helpful posts from dacouch and Vaio.
Like to buy you a drink if you're ever over this way!