No MOT subsequent insurance issue

Rebelwithoutacloo

Hi all,

Thanks in advance for any constructive advice, ill be as short as I can. 

I should add I have read the 12 page thread typically referred to on MSE but unsure if it pertains to my specific circumstances. 

Would be great to hear from some people who know what they're talking about I.e. Not me. 

Split up with my ex partner some months ago, it was amicable. I had bought her a car which was fully in my name, but she needed it for work and was having financial issues. 

We came to an agreement that she could keep the car, a few months ago, on a permanent basis. I sent the log book off and cancelled the tax. 

Today she has had an accident. The other driver completely at fault and we have already had an acknowledgement from their company(LV), they stated that they will pay for all repairs and we don't need to claim from our insurers. 

In the interim my ex partner then realised the car had not been MOT'D during the period of transition. 

I should add I kept the insurance policy active with both of us as named drivers, and it's fully comprehensive. However I am listed as the person who holds the log book on the policy. 

I guess my question is, what is the best course of action here?

Does the fact that the other driver has admitted fault provide any mitigation?

The advice I've had so far is that I'm absolutely screwed and liable to be prosecuted, which would mean the end of my job for sure. 

Thank you for reading.

Grumpy_chap

Rebelwithoutacloo said:

The advice I've had so far is that I'm absolutely screwed and liable to be prosecuted, which would mean the end of my job for sure. 

Who gave you this advice and why?  In what context?  Relating to which part of the whole matter?

I am not entirely sure what your question is?

The other party has admitted liability so they should restore you (your ex) to the state that would have been had the accident never occurred. 
The fact there is no MOT is not significant - similarly, if she was driving over the speed limit it does not automatically mean the insurance was invalid.  However, if the car was unsafe that could be contributory and reduce the compensation if it means split liabilities.  That does not seem to be the case.

JGB1955

I think you're worrying unnecessarily.  No MOT Doesn't Invalidate Insurance - Patterson Law

AdrianC

I don't see what you'd be "screwed" or prosecuted for.

At the time you took the policy out, and said you were the keeper, that was accurate. Better update them on it now.

The driver of the car may face a fine for not having an MOT - it's not that serious, no points, assuming the car wasn't unroadworthy. If it is, then they may be prosecuted for that, whether or not it had an MOT.

If the car was being written off, then the insurer may pay less out, reflecting the fact that a car without an MOT is worth less than one with. But they've agreed to repair, so that's a moot point.

Top tip: https://www.gov.uk/mot-reminder

NewLeaf1986

I think OP's question relates to who's name the V5 is in; as on his insurance policy he will have declared that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle?

So you handed the car over to your ex, but left the insurance policy in your name active rather than your ex taking out their own policy at the point of change of keeper?

If that's the case, it could be tricky, it entirely depends on whether or not your insurer ask for a copy of the V5. 

We can't predict whether or not that will happen, or whether they will be amicable to the change in registered keeper mid-term. 

Rebelwithoutacloo

Grumpy_chap said:

Rebelwithoutacloo said:

The advice I've had so far is that I'm absolutely screwed and liable to be prosecuted, which would mean the end of my job for sure. 

Who gave you this advice and why?  In what context?  Relating to which part of the whole matter?

I am not entirely sure what your question is?

The other party has admitted liability so they should restore you (your ex) to the state that would have been had the accident never occurred. 
The fact there is no MOT is not significant - similarly, if she was driving over the speed limit it does not automatically mean the insurance was invalid.  However, if the car was unsafe that could be contributory and reduce the compensation if it means split liabilities.  That does not seem to be the case.

Thanks for the reply. 

A garage owner friend told me that due to the incorrect details on the insurance policy coupled with that fact that when the 3rd party insurers (LV) log it into a garage, when placed on their systems it'll show no MOT, which may be grounds for dispute and potential legal recourse. 

To simplify my question, what are the legal ramifications should both pieces of information come to light I.e. The insurance documents have incorrect information and there is no MOT?

I am understanding that the MOT does not invalidate insurance on its own, but the policy details being incorrect?

Just to clarify it's still me listed on said documents that owns the car, whereas I transferred ownership over a month ago. My ex is a named driver with fully comprehensive cover. 

AdrianC

The driver was insured. There's no doubt about that.

You aren't claiming from your insurer. The other insurer is repairing.

This is a non-issue.

Sandtree

Civil law, the damage done to your car, and criminal law, driving without an MOT, are two totally separate issues.

LV= have accepted liability and so will deal with your claim irrespective if it had MOT or not. The only impact is that a car without an MOT is worth less than a car with one and so its more likely to be a total loss and the settlement would be lower if it is.

As to your own insurance... given she has the car, she is the main driver, its kept at her home etc it would make sense for her to be the buyer of the insurance going forward.