Someone hit my parked car with lapsed MOT (by 5 days)

Quentin

holly_hobby wrote: »

I see .... well we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

H

Maybe you ought to research this issue before posting misleading "advice".

Especially now you have been corrected!

dacouch

holly_hobby wrote: »

Many insurers now include in the contractual t&c's, that the vehicle must have a valid MOTd at the time of incident to be covered - I will conceed as a gesture, that whether this will affect the OP will be down to what THEIR policy docs state, but to state this isn't applicable across the board, and doesn't happen, is presumptious and wrong.

Indeed I'm aware of someone whom this happened to, where the insurer directly relied upon this term to reject the claim (having established it was out of MOT when this was checked as part of the claim validation process).

Holly

They can put what they want in the policy, however even if they put a requirement in the policy for the car to have an MOT it is entirely unenforcable.

If your friend had come to MSE we would have put him right and ensured his claim was paid.

Here is the relevant part 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

8.1.2 "A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except
where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:

(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):
(a) under a 'life of another' contract, the warranty relates to a
statement of fact concerning the life to be assured and, if
the statement had been made by the life to be assured under
an 'own life' contract, the insurer could have rejected the
claim under this rule;

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

Which in laymans terms means if say an Insurer imposes a term on your home insurance stating you must have certain locks and your house burns down due to an electrical fault the Insurer must pay the claim. The same principle works on the MOT issue.

There are numerous threads on MSE where Insurers have declined a claim due to no MOT and the claim has been paid following advice on MSE.

EvaLiq

Thanks dacouch - That is indeed very useful information to be aware of.

holly_hobby

Thanks for that very useful and informative post D. - which clearly documents the basis of your comments.

So, from the above, its apparant that although motor insurers may include the requirement of a valid MOT/SORN in the contractual T&Cs, this apparently cannot be relied upon, UNLESS the claim/incident is directly attributed to the car not being roadworthy (ie out of MOT).

Very interesting, and something I wouldn't never have imagined was possible, given that an un-MOT'd car is essentially on the road illegally.

I am very happy to be corrected that depending upon the underlying mechanics of the claim, a non valid MOT does not always invalidate the insurance policy, and my comments that a vehicle being driven illegally would invalidate the ins regardless, were made with best intentions (my field is regulated FS), and based on experience of a colleague, whom as I explained, did have this happen to them - and whom accepted that the insurers refusal of the claim based on holding no valid MOT or SORN registration at the TOI, did appear completely reasonable (if not disappointing) given that this was also within his contractual T&Cs ..... as you say I wish he hadn't thought that this wasn't un-reasonable, correct or enforceable given the factors, and had the foresight to have dug about to see how he could have challenged his T&Cs and somehow got round it.

Indeed I found this article today, which discusses the consequences of driving without an MOT, and also highlights a point that no MOT invalidates the insurance policy ..... so it does appear this is a widespread urban myth that even some info sites are promoting as factual - http://www.talktalk.co.uk/money/latest-features/insurance/car-mot-risk-of-not-having-one.html

Anyhoo, thanks for the above info once again .... which I hope the OP will utilise if their own insurers also have a bash at rejecting - unfortunately its a little late for my colleague he sadly passed away 3 yrs ago - but which I've tucked away for future ref !


Holly

forgotmyname

But thats talktalk.

I wonder if the person who wrote that article was the same person that told me my internet kept dropping because i had the wrong colour wire on my wireless router.

Not because their network was crap.

Quentin

holly_hobby wrote: »

So, from the above, its apparant that although motor insurers may include the requirement of a valid MOT/SORN in the contractual T&Cs, this apparently cannot be relied upon, UNLESS the claim/incident is directly attributed to the car not being roadworthy (ie out of MOT)...............

No.

Being "out of MOT" (or in it) isn't relevant to the roadworthy issue!

As you will have realised so called experts who try and perpetuate this myth regarding your insurance being invalid if you have no mot on mse do get corrected (and "agreeing to differ" offers get short shrift).

(And going to talktalk's website for insurance advice gets you all you deserve!)

magpiecottage

If your friend was not given FOS rights at the time they can still complain Holly.

Quentin

magpiecottage wrote: »

If your friend was not given FOS rights at the time they can still complain Holly.

Keep up.

(We have learnt that the "friend" has been in a far far better place where the FOS don't go for the last 3 years.)

real1314

holly_hobby wrote: »

(my field is regulated FS)
Holly

It's a simple rule that a contract cannot ever over-rule statute. It applies to financial services too, and to pretty much every contract in the uk.
:cool: