Car accident with no MOT

PleaseHelp320

Good afternoon guys,

I've had no sleep for the past 7 days and need some closure if possible. If I can please tell you what happend;

I was driving within the speed limit, when a car from the opposite direction took a late Amber very fast, didn't wait in the box junction and swerved in front of me in my lane to take his right turn. He then hit his brakes when he realised I was coming and blocked my path, so he's now sitting sideways on my lane. I had no option but to either go right into him or hit the brake and swerve left. I did so and hit a bike which was waiting at the lights. I him at about 5mph, there was very minimal damage to my bike and his. The biker now wants to claim on my insurance. I was on my way to get my MOT done.

My questions are-

1) Can I reclaim the money from the golf? As his reckless driving caused all this.
2) if I try to claim on the golf, can they say i shouldn't even be on the road as i didn't have MOT? Even if i was driving to the garage?

Please help me 😟

Jackmydad

Did you have your MOT booked in with the garage?
Have you got any witnesses?

Linton

If you dont have a valid MOT certificate you are still allowed to drive to a pre-booked MOT.

spadoosh

I was under the impression that you could drive a vehicle without MOT to the test centre without voidin gthe insurance. So if thats true you should be ok. Im guessing you have reciepts to back this up?

If not, your in a bad place. Cancelled insurance policy, potential criminal charges, small court claims and an inability to get (affordable) insurance any time soon.

Have you spoken to your insurer to make them aware of the accident? If the biker contacts them before you, it wont look good.

Quentin

Having no MOT doesn't have any effect on your insurance (it's an urban myth)


And as long as your MOT was pre-booked and you were en route to the appointment you won't have any police trouble either.


(Both the above assume your car was roadworthy)


Explain the circs to your insurer - in particular make sure they have the other car's details.


Your insurer will deal with the cyclist's claim and pursue the other car's insurer if they are liable.

Aretnap

spadoosh wrote: »

If not, your in a bad place. Cancelled insurance policy, potential criminal charges, small court claims and an inability to get (affordable) insurance any time soon.

This is nonsense. An insurer cannot refuse to pay a claim, still less void a policy, because of the lack of an MOT certificate. Even if the OP had not been on the way to the garage the lack of an MOT would have had virtually no effect on his claim - the only impact it could possibly have is that if his vehicle was written off the insurer might make a small deduction to the valuation to reflect the lack of a current MOT.

For those interested, the reason why the lack of an MOT makes no difference, even if the terms of your policy say you have to have one (they usually don't) is that there's a general principle that if if you breach the terms of your policy, the insurer can only refuse a claim if the breach was relevant to the claim.

So, for example, if your home insurance had a clause that said you had to lock your doors when the house was unoccupied, the insurer could refuse to pay for a burglary which happened while you left the house unlocked. However they couldn't refuse to pay, say, a subsidence claim just because they found out that you sometimes went out without locking your doors.

Similarly if your car insurance had a clause that required your car to be roadworthy, and you had no working headlights, your insurer could refuse to pay a claim for an accident you caused by driving into something in the dark. However they couldn't refuse a claim for an accident that happened in daylight.

In the case of an MOT, the lack of a piece of paper can never cause an accident, so the lack of an MOT can never in itself be grounds to refuse a claim, even if your policy said that you have to have one. Your insurer MIGHT be able to refuse the claim if your car had a defect which would have been picked up by an MOT AND that defect caused, or significantly contributed to the accident. It would be down to the insurer to prove that had happened.

spadoosh

News to me, my policy does state i require a valid mot or it could be void. Never had to test it and dont think i'd want to try it.

Apologies for the misinformation.

Quentin

spadoosh wrote: »

News to me, my policy does state i require a valid mot or it could be void. Never had to test it and dont think i'd want to try it.

Apologies for the misinformation.

You are with an unscrupulous insurer! You can safely ignore that condition should you fall foul of it


Insurers know that the FOS has ruled over this, yet some (including "reputable") name companies do have the condition you refer to. It is unenforceable.


Presumably the insurer uses the condition with gullible policyholders who accept the situation when told their claim is rejected as no MOT cert can be provided!

System

Surely swerving into a bike because your own lane was blocked puts you at fault?

Manxman_in_exile

I'm a bit confused. You were "driving" but you were on a "bike" (I presume motorcycle).


Most bikers, in my experience, would have said they were "riding" not "driving"(?).

Manxman_in_exile

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Surely swerving into a bike because your own lane was blocked puts you at fault?

If the OP was "riding" a motorcycle (rather than "driving" any other vehicle) hitting another "bike" in the other lane may have been a more reasonable option than ploughing into a car in front of them, and not cause so much damage to the other biker.