Car Insurance claim without MOT

Dan_Mitch

Hi,
I recently had a car accident and my car has been deemed a write-off, unfortunately and completely my own fault my MOT had expired 2 months previously. The insurance company is now going deduct 20 percent of the value of the car, surely they can't charge this?? Is there some sort of way of fighting it as the car was most definitely not at fault and had just had a full service so surely the engineers could recognise this??

Any help and advice would be much appreciated.

glentoran99

No MOT it shouldn't have been on the road, Id say your lucky its only 20%

Retrogamer

Sounds fair to me

A car without an MOT isn't worth as much as one the same, with an MOT.
Hence you're pay out being adjusted to give you a pay out value of your car with no MOT.

stator

How much is 20%? It sounds like an awful lot

Do the terms and conditions of your insurance policy mention what happens with no MOT?

Retrogamer

stator wrote: »

How much is 20%? It sounds like an awful lot

Do the terms and conditions of your insurance policy mention what happens with no MOT?

It won't be anything to do with the insurance policy details.
Insurance will pay what they think and can justify is a reasonable value for the car, and a car with no MOT is not going to be worth as much as a car with MOT.

So looks like they've taken the vehicle's value if it did have an MOT then knocked off 20% of that value for not having an MOT

dacouch

Dan_Mitch wrote: »

Hi,
I recently had a car accident and my car has been deemed a write-off, unfortunately and completely my own fault my MOT had expired 2 months previously. The insurance company is now going deduct 20 percent of the value of the car, surely they can't charge this?? Is there some sort of way of fighting it as the car was most definitely not at fault and had just had a full service so surely the engineers could recognise this??

Any help and advice would be much appreciated.

Your Insurer is operating on the old guidance from the Ombudsman which used to be

"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://web.archive.org/web/20130117224154/http://financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

Which usually meant Insurers valued the car on the "Trade" value which is generally about 20% off.

However fortunately for you the Ombudsman has fairly recently made this section of his guidance more specific.

It's now...

"13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain a specific requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. When deciding whether it was reasonable for an insurer to reject a consumer’s claim, we will look for evidence that the loss or damage was mostly likely caused – or was significantly contributed to – because the vehicle was not roadworthy.

An insurer can also reduce a payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. In these cases, we will look for evidence that the condition of the condition of the vehicle – or parts of it – were poor to decide whether this deduction is fair.

If the vehicle did not have a current MOT certificate, we will consider how likely it was that the vehicle would have passed an MOT test. If we decide – on the balance of probabilities – that the vehicle would have failed the test, we are likely to say that a deduction of up to 10% is reasonable."

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

So go back to your Insurers and assuming it's likely the car would have passed an MOT then there should be no deduction. If it's likely (On the balance of Probabilities) it would have failed an MOT then they should be deducting 10%.

If they try and tell you that you're lucky they should be paying out with no MOT, post back up here as the passage I've quoted clearly states the Insurer should pay out without an MOT. In addition the FCA have specific regulations your Insurer is bound by. We can supply you with these if needed.

Please update the thread once your Insurers have seen sense as it's helpful for other people who read the thread

InsideInsurance

It also depends on the value of the car, for a mid value car 10%-20% is reasonable but if the car is only worth £750 with an MOT the impact, expressed as a percentage, is going to be bigger than a £7,500 car

Archergirl

I thought if you had no MOT your ins was invalid.

cajef

Archergirl wrote: »

I thought if you had no MOT your ins was invalid.

You thought wrong.

Archergirl

Ok, so sorry.

savings_my_hobby

Archergirl wrote: »

I thought if you had no MOT your ins was invalid.

I did too, I'm assuming from the OP that the car had no MOT at the time of the accident, therefore should not have been on the road as it has not been proved "road worthy".