MOT failed and now expired yesterday - then crashed car.

Reginald74

You add the new car, they calculate the new premium and you pay the difference if there is any. 

jimjames

rainyday87 said:

Thanks for all the ho. I found the insurance act 2015 which is why it will be hard for them to not pay out because the breach of not having a valid mot is not the reason for the crash... I admitted it was my lack error. 

One thing to be aware of for future reference is not to admit liability for the accident regardless whether you think it was or not. 

Ergates

Reginald74 said:

jimjames said:

rainyday87 said:

Aretnap said:

Lots of rubbish on this thread. 

Whatever your policy says, there is a general rule that if you breach the terms of your insurance policy, your insurer can only use that as a reason to decline a claim if the breach was related to the claim.

So if your home insurance had a clause that said you had to lock your doors when the house was unoccupied, your insurer could refuse to pay for a burglary that happened while the house was left unlocked. But they couldn't refuse, say, a subsidence claim just because they found out that you didn't always lock your door when you went out. Of course they couldn't. 

Or if your car insurance said that your car had to be roadworthy and you had a couple of bald tyres your insurer could decline a claim for an accident you caused by skidding into something in the wet. But not for an accident you caused by pulling out of a junction without looking properly, where the condition of your tyres played no part in the accident.

In the case of an MOT there are no circumstances where the lack of a piece of paper can cause an accident so whatever your policy says the lack of an MOT can never by itself invalidate it. Your insurer might be able to refuse a claim if your car had a defect which would have been picked up by an MOT AND that defect played a significant part in causing the accident - which sounds unlikely from your description of it.

One thing that may cause you problems is that any faults with the car will affect its value at the time of the accident. A £1800 car which needs £1500 of work has very little value, so it will likely end up being written off and you shouldn't expect much money for it, unless you get lucky and they only do a cursory inspection and don't notice the faults. The third party element of your claim will be unaffected however. 

Thank you that makes sense. I admitted it was my fault and I had pulled out into the car by not looking in the mirror long enough. Even if my friend did the work now, I guess it's pointless? The actual parts to fix it we're £200 then 3 tyres... Swhicj I've cancelled.the garage I used for the mot wasn't my usual one and 4 hours labour was on the quote for the two jobs which mechanic friend would take an hour. So I should just be totally honest about the mot tomorrow when I can hopefully talk to an human.. 

If I get a very minimal pay out then that's unavailable. I'm most concerned about them rejecting the claim and leaving me with the other vehicles damage etc. I appreciate you explaining. 

It might be that it's cheaper for you to fix it if they pay out. If the car was worth £1800 last year then it should be worth at least that this year when it has MOT. Really depends how bad the damage is. 
Curious that the only damage on the car that hit you was a flat tyre, that doesn't sound quite right so there may be more extensive damage that isn't visible.

Even if there wasn’t you can guarantee they will invent some, plus some injuries. The concept of honesty disappeared in our country years ago, as demonstrated by the current prime minister. 

That might be what you'd do, but not everyone is dishonest.

Jenni_D

jimjames said:

rainyday87 said:

Thanks for all the ho. I found the insurance act 2015 which is why it will be hard for them to not pay out because the breach of not having a valid mot is not the reason for the crash... I admitted it was my lack error. 

One thing to be aware of for future reference is not to admit liability for the accident regardless whether you think it was or not. 

That's a good point - and is often something that is detailed in the policy document.

mgfvvc

sheramber said:

Check with your insurance company but they usually give you a set time to add the new car to the existing insurance. My company gave one month.

It won't be legal to drive, or keep the car on a public road, until you have insured it. There is no grace period.

DB1904

mgfvvc said:

sheramber said:

Check with your insurance company but they usually give you a set time to add the new car to the existing insurance. My company gave one month.

It won't be legal to drive, or keep the car on a public road, until you have insured it. There is no grace period.

I think they meant the insurance company would allow a month without owning a car before ending the policy. 

sheramber

yes, we had to buy new car and add it to the policy within a month and we would not need to take out a new policy.

We bought a slightly newer model of the same car and did not need to pay anything.

Reginald74

Ergates said:

Reginald74 said:

jimjames said:

rainyday87 said:

Aretnap said:

Lots of rubbish on this thread. 

Whatever your policy says, there is a general rule that if you breach the terms of your insurance policy, your insurer can only use that as a reason to decline a claim if the breach was related to the claim.

So if your home insurance had a clause that said you had to lock your doors when the house was unoccupied, your insurer could refuse to pay for a burglary that happened while the house was left unlocked. But they couldn't refuse, say, a subsidence claim just because they found out that you didn't always lock your door when you went out. Of course they couldn't. 

Or if your car insurance said that your car had to be roadworthy and you had a couple of bald tyres your insurer could decline a claim for an accident you caused by skidding into something in the wet. But not for an accident you caused by pulling out of a junction without looking properly, where the condition of your tyres played no part in the accident.

In the case of an MOT there are no circumstances where the lack of a piece of paper can cause an accident so whatever your policy says the lack of an MOT can never by itself invalidate it. Your insurer might be able to refuse a claim if your car had a defect which would have been picked up by an MOT AND that defect played a significant part in causing the accident - which sounds unlikely from your description of it.

One thing that may cause you problems is that any faults with the car will affect its value at the time of the accident. A £1800 car which needs £1500 of work has very little value, so it will likely end up being written off and you shouldn't expect much money for it, unless you get lucky and they only do a cursory inspection and don't notice the faults. The third party element of your claim will be unaffected however. 

Thank you that makes sense. I admitted it was my fault and I had pulled out into the car by not looking in the mirror long enough. Even if my friend did the work now, I guess it's pointless? The actual parts to fix it we're £200 then 3 tyres... Swhicj I've cancelled.the garage I used for the mot wasn't my usual one and 4 hours labour was on the quote for the two jobs which mechanic friend would take an hour. So I should just be totally honest about the mot tomorrow when I can hopefully talk to an human.. 

If I get a very minimal pay out then that's unavailable. I'm most concerned about them rejecting the claim and leaving me with the other vehicles damage etc. I appreciate you explaining. 

It might be that it's cheaper for you to fix it if they pay out. If the car was worth £1800 last year then it should be worth at least that this year when it has MOT. Really depends how bad the damage is. 
Curious that the only damage on the car that hit you was a flat tyre, that doesn't sound quite right so there may be more extensive damage that isn't visible.

Even if there wasn’t you can guarantee they will invent some, plus some injuries. The concept of honesty disappeared in our country years ago, as demonstrated by the current prime minister. 

That might be what you'd do, but not everyone is dishonest.

What a strange thing to say.