Hire car following accident

Touchwood89

Hi, I was recently in an RTA where the third party insurer has accepted full liability, my car has been deemed a total loss and a settlement payment agreed between me and my insurance company (Admiral) and my policy terminated.

During the time it's taken for this to get sorted, I have had a hire car provided by an independent company (Auxillis) who have sought to recover costs from the third party insurers. Those insurers have refused to pay, stating that my car did not have a valid MOT at the time of the accident. I'm not in a position to provide Auxillis evidence of a valid certificate. Therefore my questions are as follows:

A) At no point during the hiring of the vehicle did I state that my car did have an MOT certificate, so therefore is this relevant to recovering the costs from the third party insurer? The only statement in any of their documents is in the Credit protection policy document, under Exclusions: "We shall not be liable under this Policy for: ... Credit Agreement Charges where: ... the Damaged Vehicle was found not to have been roadworthy and We consider that the Third Party Claim has been prejudiced as a result;"- Not providing evidence of an MOT certificate may imply the vehicle was not roadworthy, but this would not have prejudiced the third party claim in any way.

My hire agreement with Auxillis is independent of my insurance policy with Admiral, would they have any reason to contact Admiral about me not providing a valid MOT certificate?

C) If they did, would Admiral be in a position to request I repay the settlement?

forgotmyname

You didnt state your car had an MOT when it didnt. But you didnt tell them it didnt have one either, They found out during routine checks which your insurer seems to have overlooked. Probably because they will claim from the other party.

Your insurer paid out? They may come back and offer a slightly reduced payout as the vehicle had no MOT.

csgohan4

Oh dear, you do know it is an offence not to have a MOT just as it is driving without insurance.


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/annex-5-penalties


Your Third party insurers may be able to reject the claim now and you will be picking up the bill????.


Why didn't you get your MOT done?


all for skimping on £54.85 you potentially have lost a lot more than this

Quentin

Touchwood89 wrote: »

...Therefore my questions are as follows:

A) At no point during the hiring of the vehicle did I state that my car did have an MOT certificate, so therefore is this relevant to recovering the costs from the third party insurer? The only statement in any of their documents is in the Credit protection policy document, under Exclusions: "We shall not be liable under this Policy for: ... Credit Agreement Charges where: ... the Damaged Vehicle was found not to have been roadworthy and We consider that the Third Party Claim has been prejudiced as a result;"- Not providing evidence of an MOT certificate may imply the vehicle was not roadworthy, but this would not have prejudiced the third party claim in any way.

My hire agreement with Auxillis is independent of my insurance policy with Admiral, would they have any reason to contact Admiral about me not providing a valid MOT certificate?

C) If they did, would Admiral be in a position to request I repay the settlement?

A) An MOT cert doesn't prove anything regarding whether or not your car was roadworthy on the date of the incident


C) It is just an urban myth that no MOT means your insurer can reject a claim or void your cover.


But having no MOT can affect the market value of the car (as a car with no MOT is usually worth less than if it had one)

forgotmyname

I think the OP is worried that the lack of an MOT meant the vehicle should not have been in use at the time and that the insurer will deem that as a reasonable clause to not pay for the hire car.

Can you claim that you had no choice but to take the hire vehicle when your vehicle shouldnt have been on the road?

Touchwood89

Thanks all.

My car was towed away, so was unroadworthy after being hit, and I needed the hire car. There is nothing in the hire car agreement that says that my previous car had to have had an MOT.......and at the moment, all they are asking is if it is correct that I didn't have one.

I'm curious as to why the hire company is asking me if this is true, as a) would they not be able to find out themselves, and b) as there is nothing in the agreement that says I have to have it, I'm not liable for paying for it (in theory).

I haven't claimed on my insurance for anything, as the other party has admitted liability, and as a result of the car being a write-off, my insurance has been cancelled. My thinking is that the MOT issue, and the accident claim are entirely different, though happening at the same time. If the liability had been mine, then my insurance company may have voided my insurance as I had no valid MOT certificate, however as it wasn't, I haven't made a claim, the other driver has, so the hire company has no recourse to get the money from me.....again, in theory.

Quentin

As already posted, your insurance is not invalidated by you driving without a current MOT.

(You say haven't made a claim, but you have!)

OnanTheBarbarian

I am a RTA lawyer.

Unless the condition of your car was a material cause of the accident, the absence of a valid MOT will not prevent recovery of the car hire charges.

The third party insurers will try to dispute this and they will probably put it into the hands of solicitors to defend any court proceedings that the hire company may need to bring (in your name) against the third party.

The problem is the claims handlers at the insurance company don't know their law and a lot of the time, the staff at the "specilialist solicitors" the insures will use to defend the claim are nothign other than button pressers following flow charts to tick off tasks etc.

I recently had a claim for a driving instructor, who simply overlooked his MOT expiring and then was involved in a rear end collision 7 months later. He was provided with a credit hire car and the insurers resisted and resisted some more. They eventually shut up and paid in full after I repeatedly reasoned with their solicitors after court proceedings were commenced.

If your hire company and the solicitors they use know what they are doing, charges will be recovered from the negligent party.

The defence of ex turpi will not succeed here.

OnanTheBarbarian

csgohan4 wrote: »

all for skimping on £54.85 you potentially have lost a lot more than this

Come on, this is MSE, who pays that for an MOT? :rotfl:

csgohan4

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Come on, this is MSE, who pays that for an MOT? :rotfl:

if you get a free MOT or cheap, the garages sometimes finds 'something' wrong to fix


Obviously best to go to a council MOT place as they have no vested interest

marlot

csgohan4 wrote: »

Oh dear, you do know it is an offence not to have a MOT just as it is driving without insurance.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/annex-5-penalties

As the table at that link shows, driving without an MOT is a relatively minor offence (fine, no points), but driving without insurance, or driving a car in a dangerous condition are much more serious.