Car accident No MOT - Please help

Quentin

You are happy to believe thinkmoney presumably because you read it

Why not read up on this at the FOS website

Your insurance is invalid if your vehicle is not roadworthy, which it could be the day after it's mot was renewed!

You ask why bother with an MOT if not needed for insurance purposes

Yet point out that they are a legal requirement??

Carrot007

mumf wrote: »

Well,I would not want to test that.As far as I am aware,MOT,insurance and tax,are legal requirements. If it is the case that driving without a valid MOT does not invalidate your insurance,then why bother with one at all?

It all comes down to is the car road worthy.


If it would pass an MOT then insurance would be valid (or even if it would fail on silly little things (unless relevant to the accident()).


If it is unroadworthy then insurance MAY be invalid, and that would be the case regardless of having a valid MOT.


As such the MOT is neither here not there to the validity of insurance. The condition of the car is what matters.

immi_geez

@mumf

If this was the case they wouldn't have paid me anything. I have got a cheque of £3500 sat in my drawer from the insurance company.

Your comments have not helped me at all. If you can't contribute I'd suggest you stay out of it.

mumf

immi_geez wrote: »

@mumf

If this was the case they wouldn't have paid me anything. I have got a cheque of £3500 sat in my drawer from the insurance company.

Your comments have not helped me at all. If you can't contribute I'd suggest you stay out of it.

You did well then.Putting my comments into context,one only has to look at other insurance related threads here,where non- disclosure of information,or transcending the law automatically negates insurance cover. No MOT,is no MOT.If I got pulled over by police,I would expect trouble for non compliance with UK Law. Then again,I take such things seriously,and dont let them slip.You got lucky.

kelevraz

Most (if not all) insurer's will include some sort of provision / exclusion in your policy about submitting a claim while driving with no MOT

But there's a common sense notion applied here - if your on your way to an MOT centre, or from an MOT centre, or maybe your MOT failed a few of days ago for a headlight and you just didn't have time to get it fixed straight away, and you happen to have an accident - your insurer wont invalidate your policy because you were 'driving with no MOT'. The ombudsman would swiftly say thats 'not fair or reasonable'

If you have an accident and they find that you failed your MOT six months ago and just haven't bothered to get it get it sorted, so you've been driving around willy nilly with no MOT, then yeh, its likely they'll invalidate your policy, and you can bet your policy terms that they can do this

Plenty of people get into accidents when they don't have MOT, and most of them wont have their policy invalidated for it. Although, they'll probably have to deal with a reduced valuation - and in OP's case, if the ombudsman were to look at it, they'd ask his insurer to evidence why they feel a 10% should be applied - and it's probably a figure applied to any car that's declared a total loss that had no MOT at the time, the same way that underwriting criteria is applied

Quentin

kelevraz wrote: »

Most (if not all) insurer's will include some sort of provision / exclusion in your policy about submitting a claim while driving with no MOT


If you have an accident and they find that you failed your MOT six months ago and just haven't bothered to get it get it sorted, so you've been driving around willy nilly with no MOT, then yeh, its likely they'll invalidate your policy, and you can bet your policy terms that they can do this

More urban myths

Yes, some rogue insurers may have conditions referring to having no mot meaning invalid insurance

But as already posted FOS has ruled those conditions are unenforceable!

Rainbowgirl84

mumf wrote: »

You did well then.Putting my comments into context,one only has to look at other insurance related threads here,where non- disclosure of information,or transcending the law automatically negates insurance cover. No MOT,is no MOT.If I got pulled over by police,I would expect trouble for non compliance with UK Law. Then again,I take such things seriously,and dont let them slip.You got lucky.

They really didn't, the FOS ruled on it years ago...end of story as far as being insured is concerned. Getting 'pulled over' by the police is a completely separate issue.

marlot

kelevraz wrote: »

Most (if not all) insurer's will include some sort of provision / exclusion in your policy about submitting a claim while driving with no MOT
...

None of mine do.



They all say something along the lines of "your vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy condition".


When I search the FOS database, the most common reason for insurers turning down a claim on roadworthiness grounds is bald tyres. No mention of lack of MOT.

Aretnap

The basic rule is that if you breach the terms and conditions of your insurance policy, the insurer can only use that as a reason to decline a claim if the breach somehow contributed to the claim itself. This has been incorporated into industry guidelines and codes of practice for donkey's years, and was formally made law by the Insurance Act 2015.


So, for example, if your home insurance had a clause which said you had to lock your doors while the house was unoccupied, your insurer could refuse a claim for a burglary which happened while you'd left the house unlocked. However if a storm blew your roof off, they would not be able to decline the claim just because they found out that your house was unlocked at the time. Which is as it should be.


Or, if your car insurance said that your car had to be roadworthy and your car had no working headlights, your insurer could refuse to pay for an accident that you caused by driving into something in the dark, but not for an accident that happened in daylight.


In the case of an MOT, there are no circumstances in which the lack of a piece of paper can cause an accident. So even if your policy did say that you had to have a valid MOT, your insurer would never be able to refuse a claim purely because you didn't have one. They might be able to refuse the claim if your car had a defect that would have been picked up by an MOT and that defect caused, or significantly contributed to, the accident. However there's no indication that that happened in the OP's case, or any of the other cases mentioned in this thread.

Chickenlips

The FOS will look at what is fair and reasonable.

You will need to evidence why you think you should get more, which starts with providing a counter valuation.

If you have not provided them with evidence that they need to reconsider the figure as you have estimates saying it is X Y & Z to replace, you may struggle to get the outcome you hoped for.

You can't simply say "I want more because I think it is worth more" you have to show them why you think that. You're not really helping your case by asking them to up it without proof. If you think it is worth more then the suggestion about an independent valuation is a good one and you should put it to them as youd have nothing to lose.