Had an accident with no MOT!! Panicking

Ljones15

Thanks for the feedback guys! Like Quentin said I shouldn't panic over my own insurance as I'm only third party it's all about her insurance contacting me. I'm pretty new towards having an accident and how the process works between insurance company's. From what I read the first person i need to contact is a solicitor.

societys_child

Ljones15 wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback guys! Like Quentin said I shouldn't panic over my own insurance as I'm only third party it's all about her insurance contacting me. I'm pretty new towards having an accident and how the process works between insurance company's. From what I read the first person i need to contact is a solicitor.

Why do you need to contact a solicitor? Just let your insurance company deal with it.

Buellguy

societys_child wrote: »

Why do you need to contact a solicitor? Just let your insurance company deal with it.

+1 - if you have legal cover (and on my motorbike policy I would ALWAYS have legal cover) let them deal with everything

Ljones15

I'll look into my bike insurance now. Thanks

Anybody had past experience when receiving a third party settlement? Luckily my injuries are not very serious but i have severe whiplash and my right leg is badly bruised including soft tissue damage to the knee.

Quentin

In that case you do need a solicitor to sort this for you.

If you google cash back injury solicitors you'll find firms who will pay you £100s just for going direct to them instead of via your insurer on top of the compensation you win

Buellguy

Ljones15 wrote: »

I'll look into my bike insurance now. Thanks

Anybody had past experience when receiving a third party settlement? Luckily my injuries are not very serious but i have severe whiplash and my right leg is badly bruised including soft tissue damage to the knee.

Yep - crash in June 2008, broken right thumb, fractured and dislocated left elbow, severe brusing to both legs (a lovely shade of black/purple), had to have an operation on the elbow in 2009. LOTS of physio. Permanent damage to left elbow (cannot extend it fully and will never be able to do so). All the result of a SMIDSY (although I do thank someone up there I was only doing 40mph - not the speed limit (60mph)). Finally received full settlement June this year - yep 4 years.

Note to self - don't try and pick up a Daytona 955i when you've just flown over a car bonnet and done all the damage listed - it HURTS :eek:

Loganfire

paddedjohn wrote: »

Please ignore this rubbish above, the only problem you will have is if the scoot is written off, instead of getting full market price for it you may get a reduced amount based on it not being mot'd

As i have worked in motor insurance for over 5 years I think I have a little insight on what an insurance company will do, as the person had no MOT the insurance company may not payout has he broken his terms and conditions of his contract with regard to his insurance policy. They could payout to the other party then claim back any costs from him, it has been know where insurance company take people to court to claim money back.

As to receiving a reduce amount for his bike being wrote of this is what we call in the insurance business as B@LL S@@T. However if he can provide proof to his insurance company that he had it pre-book at a MOT station they they will payout.

paddedjohn

Loganfire wrote: »

As i have worked in motor insurance for over 5 years I think I have a little insight on what an insurance company will do, as the person had no MOT the insurance company may not payout has he broken his terms and conditions of his contract with regard to his insurance policy. They could payout to the other party then claim back any costs from him, it has been know where insurance company take people to court to claim money back.

As to receiving a reduce amount for his bike being wrote of this is what we call in the insurance business as B@LL S@@T. However if he can provide proof to his insurance company that he had it pre-book at a MOT station they they will payout.

The insurer cant refuse to pay out if the vehicle hasnt got a valid mot cert, they can pay a lesser amount for this reason but they cant not pay.

dacouch

Loganfire wrote: »

As i have worked in motor insurance for over 5 years I think I have a little insight on what an insurance company will do, as the person had no MOT the insurance company may not payout has he broken his terms and conditions of his contract with regard to his insurance policy. They could payout to the other party then claim back any costs from him, it has been know where insurance company take people to court to claim money back.

As to receiving a reduce amount for his bike being wrote of this is what we call in the insurance business as B@LL S@@T. However if he can provide proof to his insurance company that he had it pre-book at a MOT station they they will payout.

If you've got five years experience in motor claims and have this opinion then I'm shocked at your lack of knowledge. If you work for a company where this view is taught to staff, you must work for a really cheap and cheerful Insurer

Lack of an MOT CANNOT affect a motor insurance claim whether for own damage or third party damage. If the car was in an "Unroadworthy Condition" and this directly contributed or contributed to the incident, then the Insurer can refuse the own damage and then seek to recover the third party damages. This is assuming they have a wording in their policy confirming this.

In the above situation, the Insurer can reduce the write off payment to take into account the affect on the value or a car not having an MOT, the typical value they pay is the "Trade" value.

Here is the relevant information from the Ombudsman.

"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

If the Ombudsman is not good enough for you, here is the relevant rule from the FSA which your employer MUST abide by

8.1.2
"A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except
where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:
8.1.2
(1) non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk which the
policyholder could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed;
or
(2) non-negligent misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk;
or
(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the
claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure
protection contract)"

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel73/rel73icobs.pdf

I'll explain the ICOBS to you, it means that you cannot decline a claim due to a breach of a warranty or condition unless the breach is connected to the claim. Thus not having an MOT is not a breach and cannot in itself show the car is unroadworthy. The only way you can rely on the above is if the car is in an "Unroadworthy Condition" and it being unroadworthy is connected to the claim eg the brakes were faulty and a lack of braking caused the claim.

To give you another example, you cannot refuse a storm damage claim for a house because they did not have their security alarm switched on as it does not affect a storm damage claim.

To make it better for you, it's up to the Insurer to prove the car is unroadworthy.

You really need to read up and not quote such miss leading information, compounded by boasting of your experience which could make people from outside the industry think what your stating as fact is actually true when it;s rubbish

Quentin

Loganfire wrote: »

As i have worked in motor insurance for over 5 years I think I have a little insight on what an insurance company will do, as the person had no MOT the insurance company may not payout has he broken his terms and conditions of his contract with regard to his insurance policy. .......

Just ignore this illinformed nonsense.

If you are a worker in insurance, then you must work for one of the unscrupulous companies that have this unfair (and therefore unenforceable) conditions in their policy.

Do a search on MSE to find a number of members that have been faced with this attitude, reported it here and been helped to win their payout.

The FOS is clear about it. You don't need a current MOT, whatever your policy says!