Car Accident With A Car With No MOT

debtdebt

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Hell fire what is wrong with this forum? Did you not read the guys post?


So debtdebt what's the need in your pointless attitude? Who said the OP was looking for ways to escape anything? OP said it was their own fault.

It's a shame that there's actually more people like you on this forum - looking for things that don't exist.

"if it makes you feel better"?

And i bet if he said he found a car that had no MOT but was on the road and he's not going to do anything about it you'd want to crucify him for that too?


Also why is it that when someone comes to this message board to ask a question there's always a group of morons to jump on that persons thread, look for things that don't exist and when they don't find them they just make things up anyway.

If the OP wasn't looking to escape his legal liability, why was he mentioning the fact that the third party vehicle did not have an MOT and why was he asking people where he stood if he already believes himself to be at fault for the accident? He's at fault for the accident. He or his insurers will have to pay out for the damage to the third party vehicle. What advice could he possibly be looking for if he already understands this other than seeking advice on some way to avoid paying out because the other vehicle does not have an MOT?

JustAnotherSaver

debtdebt wrote: »

If the OP wasn't looking to escape his legal liability, why was he mentioning the fact that the third party vehicle did not have an MOT and why was he asking people where he stood if he already believes himself to be at fault for the accident? He's at fault for the accident. He or his insurers will have to pay out for the damage to the third party vehicle. What advice could he possibly be looking for if he already understands this other than seeking advice on some way to avoid paying out because the other vehicle does not have an MOT?

Well maybe just maybe he's unsure of the procedure when the other guy has no MOT therefore is not fully legal.
Sure YOU may be but then that's wonderful as YOU never asked the question.
So simply maybe the fact that it isn't the 'normal' I'm insured you're insured it's my fault has thrown him and he just wants to make sure he doesn't do anything wrong from this point on.
Maybe he's checking that the other guy will still be insured since he's driving without an MOT so therefore will the other guy be able to claim or not.

Maybe he doesn't know everything like you do and wants people to just spare a bit of time to give him some knowledge.

But then that isn't juicy enough for people like you is it!?

POPPYOSCAR

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Yup, agreed.

Last year someone hit me & drove off.

I told the insurance because that's what you're supposed to do right?

He denied any involvement. The end result is that for the next 5 years i get a hike in my premium (i didn't claim as i didn't want the car written off) as i have to say yes i've been in an accident and he doesn't have to declare a thing.

Yeah how great it was telling the insurance. Really feel like i achieved something :wall:

Yes honesty does not pay most of the time.

I was with a friend when she was on the phone trying to negotiate her renewal price.

She was saying about how she had never made a claim even when
she had both her wing mirrors stolen and had just replaced them herself. I was shaking my head and mouthing NO... but too late.

They promptly increased her premium by £35!!!

Aretnap

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Yes honesty does not pay most of the time.

I was with a friend when she was on the phone trying to negotiate her renewal price.

She was saying about how she had never made a claim even when
she had both her wing mirrors stolen and had just replaced them herself. I was shaking my head and mouthing NO... but too late.

They promptly increased her premium by £35!!!

Which is one arguament for it being better to notify the insurer up front and pay the £35, than have them go through the same list of questions when you try to make a claim and end up accidentally blurting out the truth...

See also the number of people with no accidents declared who phone up to report an accident and say "I can't believe it's happened again so soon". Or the ones insured for SDP only who shout down the phone "You have to fix my car faster than that! I need it for work!".

The lies we tell are easily forgotten, but it takes no special effort to remember the truth.

POPPYOSCAR

Aretnap wrote: »

Which is one arguament for it being better to notify the insurer up front and pay the £35, than have them go through the same list of questions when you try to make a claim and end up accidentally blurting out the truth...

See also the number of people with no accidents declared who phone up to report an accident and say "I can't believe it's happened again so soon". Or the ones insured for SDP only who shout down the phone "You have to fix my car faster than that! I need it for work!".

The lies we tell are easily forgotten, but it takes no special effort to remember the truth.

No she would never had said anything to them had she known they would increase her premium. She was under the impression you had to actually claim.

It is unjustifiable IMO to increase a premium without a claim being made.

You do not have to inform your house insurance provider if you damage an item at home and not make a claim for it so why should car insurance be any different.

I once broke a crystal vase, the insurance company told me it was not worth my while to make a claim. My premium did not change on renewal.

Car_54

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

It is unjustifiable IMO to increase a premium without a claim being made.

The insurers will tell you that having one accident means that the probability of your having another is increased. This is based on the analysis of millions of accidents over many years.

Whether a claim is made does not alter the fact that an accident has happened, so taking account of it is perfectly justifiable. Not bothering to claim does not make you a safer driver;).

Warwick_Hunt

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

No she would never had said anything to them had she known they would increase her premium. She was under the impression you had to actually claim.

It is unjustifiable IMO to increase a premium without a claim being made.

You do not have to inform your house insurance provider if you damage an item at home and not make a claim for it so why should car insurance be any different.

I once broke a crystal vase, the insurance company told me it was not worth my while to make a claim. My premium did not change on renewal.

So if a driver killed a pesestrian with no dependants he’s not a greater risk?

debtdebt

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Well maybe just maybe he's unsure of the procedure when the other guy has no MOT therefore is not fully legal.
Sure YOU may be but then that's wonderful as YOU never asked the question.
So simply maybe the fact that it isn't the 'normal' I'm insured you're insured it's my fault has thrown him and he just wants to make sure he doesn't do anything wrong from this point on.
Maybe he's checking that the other guy will still be insured since he's driving without an MOT so therefore will the other guy be able to claim or not.

Maybe he doesn't know everything like you do and wants people to just spare a bit of time to give him some knowledge.

But then that isn't juicy enough for people like you is it!?

Unsure of what procedure? Maybe, just maybe the OP should report the accident to his insurers and let them deal with the third party rather than skulking about trying to wangle out of it due to "no MOT" or paying cash directly to the third party.

For the avoidance of doubt:

i. No MOT will not affect a claim if the OP was at fault
ii. No insurance will not affect a claim if the OP was at fault
iii. No tax will not affect the claim if the OP was at fault
iv. Not tax, insurance or MOT will not affect the claim if the OP was at fault

If the OP wants to settle cash in hand, so be it. He'll probably have to pay for the full pre accident value of the vehicle as repairs to anything over two panels will be over £500 at any decent bodyshop. OP will probably be expecting to be handed an estimate of circa £100 and will run for the hills if he gets an estimate over that. Notwithstanding that, any payment disregarding whatever limiting terms maybe scrawled on a piece of paper between the parties won't be able to exclude any potential personal injury claim. Will the OP have circa £4k set aside for the next three years incase the third party presents a 12 month whiplash injury claim?