Car insured or not /

dacouch

molerat wrote: »

OP I think needs to look carefully at the renewal notice and t&cs. It may well state that the vehicle must have an MOT for them to start / renew the cover in which case a material fact which would have led them not to re-insure was not disclosed at the time of renewal. Many insurers will not insure a vehicle that does not hold a current MOT. This may put a whole new angle on the case and make it messier, the insurance may not be valid from inception due to non disclosure.

Have you read my posts, it does not matter whether the car has an MOT or not, the Insurer cannot refuse a claim due to lack of an MOT.

molerat

It is not about a claim it is about the insured not declaring a material fact at renewal. The car did not hold an an MOT at the commencement of cover which was not declared to the insurer.

Quentin

Not having an mot is immaterial!

So where do you get that Idea from?

vaio

He does raise an interesting point........

If at inception I declare no modifications when I have fancy wheels then my policy can be voided from inception if my insurer wouldn't have offered cover had it known about the wheels.

I can't see why (if the specific question is asked) a similar declaration that a car has an MOT (when in fact it doesn't) couldn't also result in insurance being voided from inception if the insurer would have refused cover had they known the truth.

All the FOS/FSA stuff applies to fairness in dealing with claims under existing valid policies, the situation at inception could be argued to be different, if a specific question is asked and answered incorrectly and the insurer would not have offered cover had the question been answered correctly

forgotmyname

Worst case you have an accident and they could say its not got an MOT so its not worth as much as we would payout. So will offer less.
Although they appear to be poor at paying fair prices anyway.

Write them a nice formal complaint letter and point out their mistake(s).

dacouch

forgotmyname wrote: »

Worst case you have an accident and they could say its not got an MOT so its not worth as much as we would payout. So will offer less.
Although they appear to be poor at paying fair prices anyway.

Write them a nice formal complaint letter and point out their mistake(s).

As it's Admiral and they don't even have a requirement in the Policy to have an MOT, I would be inclined to ring and speak to someone senior who (Hopefully) should immediately realise they have made a massive mistake and move heaven and earth to rectify the mistake to keep the costs to Admiral from spiraling.

System

vaio wrote: »

All the FOS/FSA stuff applies to fairness in dealing with claims under existing valid policies, the situation at inception could be argued to be different, if a specific question is asked and answered incorrectly and the insurer would not have offered cover had the question been answered correctly

That's an interesting theoretical point, but it does not appear in this case that the insurers are making that argument, rather declaring (wrongly) that lack of an MOT at a given moment invalidates the policy.

But perhaps if Admiral are reading this thread they might quickly change their argument

dacouch

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

That's an interesting theoretical point, but it does not appear in this case that the insurers are making that argument, rather declaring (wrongly) that lack of an MOT at a given moment invalidates the policy.

But perhaps if Admiral are reading this thread they might quickly change their argument

I don't think Admiral have an official MSE rep, however I would be surprised if a company of their size if not using google alerts to monitor the mention of their name on the internet so it hopefully will come to their attention.

If not then if they have any sense and the OP speaks to the correct person they will realise their mistake on Monday as the potential costs could run into a large amount of money if the OP's son relies on his licence for work. As it is I imagine they in for over £500 to pay for the release of the car (If seized) any consequential costs and if they have any sense £100+ for the distress caused.

If the police spoke to Admiral's MIB department as opposed to the normal customer service dept and was given this information then someone needs some serious training. I would not be surprised if this case was used in future training to show the consequences of guessing an answer.

newfoundglory

The Police are just going to blame Admiral, but haven't they been equally as incompetent here? Seems like the Police need some additional training too.

What exactly is the point of carrying your insurance certificate OR having to produce it within 7 days at a Police station if it means diddly squat. Is the PNC/MID along with a copy of the certificate not good enough?

dacouch

Linking in with Spacey2012's post here's a relevant section from the RTA.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148