Unannounced visit - Investigation Officer from Council

tokenfield

dacouch wrote: »

That is completely wrong.

Lack of an MOT has no effect on an Insurance claim irrespective of what the Policy wording has.

The only effect it can have is to reduce the value of your own car should it be written off. You will typically receive the "Trade" value for a car without an MOT.

You're repeating an urban myth that's incorrect

No I am not!! From experience in the past where an MOT wasn't carried out simply because of forgetfulness and there was an accident, the insurance company refused to cover the cost of the repairs citing that the car was not considered roadworthy by virtue of not having a current MOT and as such should not have been used on the public highway.

Their logic when questioned on this was simple - No MOT - car should not be on the road - the accident would not have happened.

That particular incident cost me a total of £7000 to cover the cost of the repairs to my car and the car that I hit. On top of that the other driver claimed against the MIB - uninsured drivers benefit for whiplash injuries. He attempted to claim against me personally.
My insurance company withdrew cover after the accident and I had one hell of a job getting insurance from elsewhere when I told them that my previous insurer refused to continue cover.

dacouch

tokenfield wrote: »

No I am not!! From experience in the past where an MOT wasn't carried out simply because of forgetfulness and there was an accident, the insurance company refused to cover the cost of the repairs citing that the car was not considered roadworthy by virtue of not having a current MOT and as such should not have been used on the public highway.

Their logic when questioned on this was simple - No MOT - car should not be on the road - the accident would not have happened.

That particular incident cost me a total of £7000 to cover the cost of the repairs to my car and the car that I hit. On top of that the other driver claimed against the MIB - uninsured drivers benefit for whiplash injuries. He attempted to claim against me personally.
My insurance company withdrew cover after the accident and I had one hell of a job getting insurance from elsewhere when I told them that my previous insurer refused to continue cover.

You are wrong!

Here is the Ombudsman's view.

"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."

They're saying an MOT will devalue the write off value but not affect a claim unless the car was "unroadworthy" AND it being "unroadworthy" caused or substantially caused the incident.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

It should be noted that an MOT only confirms the car is roadworthy on the day of the MOT. It even states this on the MOT.

Here's the FSA's rules (They've recently been superseded by the FCA but the same applies).

"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):
(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; or
(b) the warranty is material to the risk and was drawn to the
customer's attention before the conclusion of the contract."

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

Which basically means the same.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4707327

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2573777

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4374613

There are plenty more on MSE.

Your Insurer did you over unless of course your car was "Unroadworthy" and this caused or substantially caused the accident AND your Policy contained a clear statement they would not pay a claim if the car was Unroadworthy and it caused or substantially caused the accident. You should have asked on MSE and your claim would have been paid

Once again not having an MOT does not invalidate your car insurance and neither does not having a tax disc.

I'll get my coat

tokenfield

dacouch wrote: »

You are wrong!

Here is the Ombudsman's view.

"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."

They're saying an MOT will devalue the write off value but not affect a claim unless the car was "unroadworthy" AND it being "unroadworthy" caused or substantially caused the incident.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

It should be noted that an MOT only confirms the car is roadworthy on the day of the MOT. It even states this on the MOT.

Here's the FSA's rules (They've recently been superseded by the FCA but the same applies).

"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):
(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; or
(b) the warranty is material to the risk and was drawn to the
customer's attention before the conclusion of the contract."

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

Which basically means the same.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4707327

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2573777

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4374613

There are plenty more on MSE.

Your Insurer did you over unless of course your car was "Unroadworthy" and this caused or substantially caused the accident AND your Policy contained a clear statement they would not pay a claim if the car was Unroadworthy and it caused or substantially caused the accident. You should have asked on MSE and your claim would have been paid

Once again not having an MOT does not invalidate your car insurance and neither does not having a tax disc.

I'll get my coat

Well I never!!

So all in all that little con must have cost me well over £10,000 between the costs I paid for and the hiking of the insurance premiums over the years that followed.

No my car was totally roadworthy with only 11,000 miles on the clock, it was only 4 years old and passed the MOT as soon as the repairs had been carried out. The accident was caused by someone throwing something at the windscreen that caused it to shatter but stay in place and I ran into the back of the car in front - I was braking when I hit the car - speed was estimated at about 15mph by the police after I called them out. Incidentally I was also fined £60 for having no MOT by them.

Why would an insurance company that I paid my premiums to want to do that?

Chalk it up to another rip off that I have suffered over the years - no wonder I don't trust anybody anymore.

dacouch

tokenfield wrote: »

Well I never!!

So all in all that little con must have cost me well over £10,000 between the costs I paid for and the hiking of the insurance premiums over the years that followed.

No my car was totally roadworthy with only 11,000 miles on the clock, it was only 4 years old and passed the MOT as soon as the repairs had been carried out. The accident was caused by someone throwing something at the windscreen that caused it to shatter but stay in place and I ran into the back of the car in front - I was braking when I hit the car - speed was estimated at about 15mph by the police after I called them out. Incidentally I was also fined £60 for having no MOT by them.

Why would an insurance company that I paid my premiums to want to do that?

Chalk it up to another rip off that I have suffered over the years - no wonder I don't trust anybody anymore.

It tends to be the cheap and cheerful Insurers who have the MOT requirement and impose it.

The senior staff at the Insurer will be aware of the information I linked to. We helped some people in the same position with the same Insurers who've had claims denied on MSE, so certain Insurers will keep trying to impose the MOT restriction even when it's brought to their attention.

It would also probably come under the "Unfair Contract" laws as especially in your case the lack of MOT had no bearing on the cause of your accident

If it was relatively recently you might have some recourse against the Insurers through the normal channels. Alternatively you might be able to take them to court for it if it's within the last six years.

Try posting on the MSE Insurance forum if you want to see if you can take it up with the Insurers.

tokenfield

dacouch wrote: »

It tends to be the cheap and cheerful Insurers who have the MOT requirement and impose it.

The senior staff at the Insurer will be aware of the information I linked to. We helped some people in the same position with the same Insurers who've had claims denied on MSE, so certain Insurers will keep trying to impose the MOT restriction even when it's brought to their attention.

It would also probably come under the "Unfair Contract" laws as especially in your case the lack of MOT had no bearing on the cause of your accident

If it was relatively recently you might have some recourse against the Insurers through the normal channels. Alternatively you might be able to take them to court for it if it's within the last six years.

Try posting on the MSE Insurance forum if you want to see if you can take it up with the Insurers.

Thanks. It was with LV.

Obviously I had to change insurers after they refused to continue to cover me and never refunded any of the annual premium that I paid only 4 months earlier.

Since then it has had to be the cheap and cheerful lot as they were the only ones that would touch me after I told them that my previous insurer refused to continue and cancelled the policy on the grounds that I had not complied with their T &C as well as using a vehicle that did not have a current MOT.

It must be five years last Nov since that happened as the accident will now drop off the details at renewal next November.

dacouch

tokenfield wrote: »

Thanks. It was with LV.

Obviously I had to change insurers after they refused to continue to cover me and never refunded any of the annual premium that I paid only 4 months earlier.

Since then it has had to be the cheap and cheerful lot as they were the only ones that would touch me after I told them that my previous insurer refused to continue and cancelled the policy on the grounds that I had not complied with their T &C as well as using a vehicle that did not have a current MOT.

It must be five years last Nov since that happened as the accident will now drop off the details at renewal next November.

Six years for a court case.

You may find a simple Letter Before Action will yield results as they will know they cannot impose this. Refer to the relevant link from the Ombudsman, FSA ICOBS and Unfair Contract laws

tokenfield

dacouch wrote: »

Six years for a court case.

You may find a simple Letter Before Action will yield results as they will know they cannot impose this. Refer to the relevant link from the Ombudsman, FSA ICOBS and Unfair Contract laws

Thanks, but I have moved on now. It happened and it seems I was ripped off. Put it down to experience - my time will come.

sunnyone

Saversue wrote: »

I get DLA HR Care and Mobility - but no form of Income Related Benefit and have to pay FULL Council Tax.

Saversue wrote: »

Thank You.
That explains why I knew nothing about it, have worked all my life up to becoming ill and been sensible - have own home, so no HB or CT support for me.

Same here Sue, we have to pay for everything though we do get a council tax band reduction because I am a full time wheelchair user (I got the renewal form this morning actually)

Have you checked to see if you qualify for this?

Rahmandanel wrote: »

What can our councillor do for us?

You claim your councillor did your dads DLA claim form for him so you are familar with what a councillor can do for you!

Dimey

tokenfield wrote: »

Thanks, but I have moved on now. It happened and it seems I was ripped off. Put it down to experience - my time will come.

Wow Tokenfield. That was a lot of money you lost unfairly.

It might be worth just one letter to LV, pointing out the error of their ways with DaCouch's convincing info, prior to a threat of court even if you don't bother to go the whole hog. Small claims court is very easy though.