Car accident (at no fault) but no MOT

Filip

dacouch wrote: »

He's probably as bored as I am of correcting miss informed people on this matter.

You're probably 100% correct

Parking_Trouble

There is nothing in the Road Traffic Act requiring an MOT to keep your insurance valid.

Policy documents typically require you to keep your vehicle roadworthy. The MOT is not proof of road worthiness.

The RTA says the condition of the policyholders vehicle is not a reason for the insurer to avoid paying a third party claim but it gives the insurer the right to recover the costs from the driver or policyholder.

Typical of Admiral that in their policy document they will settle the TP costs but if the condition of the vehicle caused or contributed to the accident they will pursue the Policyholder or the driver for repayment of the TP costs. They won't pay out for damage to your own car either.

Admiral take the RTA very literally. So if you want Admirals rock bottom prices make sure your car is kept in pristine condition.

LV= also want you to keep your car roadworthy and request that you have a valid MOT if the law requires it. However they do not state the same conditions as Admiral, even though the RTA would support it. Mention of the MOT appears irrelevant as they don't have any specific exclusions.

LV= like many other insurers don't take the RTA as literally as Admiral - at least not in their policy document.

The RTA sections relating to insurance are complex and difficult to understand so unless it is articulated in the policy document in plain English - like Admiral do - then I don't expect an insurer to come after you for the costs.

Bottom line (as the bored people have said) is that MOT is irrelevant but the condition of your vehicle at the time of the accident is, if you are at fault and especially if you are insured by the Admiral Group - Admiral, Bell, Diamond and Elephant.

Always read the policy document from cover to cover and decide if it is suitable for you.

Parking_Trouble

dacouch wrote: »

Having an MOT makes no difference to an Insurance policy, the only difference it can make is that a car without an MOT is worth less so if it's written off you get a bit less.

The above is irrespective of what the Insurer puts in the policy as they cannot invalidate a policy for lack of an MOT

Correct but if you cause an accident and you don't have an MOT some insurers will get their engineer to give it a very thorough roadworthiness check because under the RTA they can just stick to their minimum obligation and seek recovery of the costs from you.

Be aware that you are signing up unlimited liability with Admiral if they decide the condition of your vehicle contributed to the accident.

Section 3 on Page 24
http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%20_policybook_0313.pdf

dacouch

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Correct but if you cause an accident and you don't have an MOT some insurers will get their engineer to give it a very thorough roadworthiness check because under the RTA they can just stick to their minimum obligation and seek recovery of the costs from you.

Be aware that you are signing up unlimited liability with Admiral if they decide the condition of your vehicle contributed to the accident.

Section 3 on Page 24
http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%20_policybook_0313.pdf

Only providing the unroadworthyness of the car caused or significantly caused the accident. Also subject to the Insurer having a clear statement in their policy that the car must be kept in a roadworthy condition which most do although most do not state they will recover RTA costs

Parking_Trouble

dacouch wrote: »

Only providing the unroadworthyness of the car caused or significantly caused the accident. Also subject to the Insurer having a clear statement in their policy that the car must be kept in a roadworthy condition which most do although most do not state they will recover RTA costs

Did you read Admirals policy? It says "caused, or contributed"
No use of the word "significantly"

It says:-

"If an accident happens, and the condition of the vehicle caused or contributed to the accident, no cover under the policy will be provided and instead, our responsibility
will be restricted to meeting obligations as required by Road Traffic law. In those circumstances, We will recover from You or the driver or any party responsible for the condition of the vehicle, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a judgement, of any claim arising from the accident.

This is very similar to their Drink and Drugs exclusion which everyone says a drunk driver deserves.

Admirals vehicle condition exclusion scares the **** out of me. Today is the first time I have seen it in their policy documentation.

Drink driving is a cut and dried offence where you are convicted by the criminal justice system because of a precise measurement of blood alcohol levels.

How are you going to determine road worthiness and whether vehicle condition played a part?

Brake pads below a certain level? Discs worn below recommended minimum, under-inflated or worn tyres? Steering geometry out? Windscreen wipers not working, cracked windscreen?

Complete and utter minefield and I guarantee you Admiral will look for any opportunity to deny a claim - otherwise, like their D&D term they wouldn't include it.

So if your brakes are a bit spongy, or grinding, or the steering pulling and you are insured with Admiral I recommend you get straight down to Kwikfit.

dacouch

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Did you read Admirals policy? It says "caused, or contributed"
No use of the word "significantly"

It would have to have "caused" or "substantially contributed to" for it to be enforceable as per the ombudsman and ICOBS.

Parking_Trouble

dacouch wrote: »

It would have to have "caused" or "substantially contributed to" for it to be enforceable as per the ombudsman and ICOBS.

Given the specific wording in the Admiral policy do you think it is worth the risk compared with other insurers who are far less aggressive in their policy wording? I certainly don't think so.

Your brakes fail and you write off an expensive motor full of people making PI claims? Easily £50k+ and maybe much more if you seriously injure or kill someone. In fact you open yourself up to unlimited liability.

thegirlintheattic

Your insurance will not cover you, assuming in the T&Cs it says you have to have a valid MOT.

BUT you will be claiming off the THIRD PARTY DIRECT. They still have to pay out, regardless of your MOT status. Although if the police are involved you could be in trouble.

FlameCloud

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Your insurance will not cover you, assuming in the T&Cs it says you have to have a valid MOT.

BUT you will be claiming off the THIRD PARTY DIRECT. They still have to pay out, regardless of your MOT status. Although if the police are involved you could be in trouble.

Have you read anything of this thread?

olly300

FlameCloud wrote: »

Have you read anything of this thread?

No she hasn't.

She also doesn't know that an MOT just indicates your car was roadworthy at the time it was tested.

For example if your car has a valid MOT certificate but illegal tyre tread then it's not roadworthy and you will have some "fun" with the police if they are doing their random checks or pull you over for something else.