RTA with third party having no Mot.

tony6919

I was involved in a collision with a driver who had no MOT. I know It does not stop you from having insurance, tax or driving, but I understand that no MOT is an offence. Liabilty is still on going because of evidence and witness statements. I believe that the third party was overtaking a single lane of stationary traffic to get through some traffic lights when he hit the side of my vehicle. The question I am asking because of time, 
Do I wait for the Liability or do I need to look at criminal injuries and loss of earnings. 
I was leaving a car park and traffic stopped to let me out as the lights where on red, because of the accident, I required an operation which left me unable to walk for six months and unable to work for 18 months.
I also looked up the vehicle Mot history and found it had previously failed for tyre depth and brake discs being worn.
Thanks for any advise.  

user1977

If they had insurance then you're just pursuing the claim in the same way as you would otherwise - I don't see where the lack of MoT makes any difference to you?

Criminal injuries compensation is for where you can't get the other party (or their insurers) to pay up. Loss of earnings is a legitimate part of your claim.

Car_54

tony6919 said:

I also looked up the vehicle Mot history and found it had previously failed for tyre depth and brake discs being worn.
Thanks for any advise.  

Have you given your insurer this information?

While having no MOT is indeed a criminal offence, it wasn't the cause of the collision. 

tony6919

The third party insurer is claiming that because I was leaving a car park/ junction, their vehicle had right of way and that I am liable for accident. 
The insurers seem to be dragging their feet and criminal injuries seems clear cut. 

Car_54

tony6919 said:

The insurers seem to be dragging their feet and criminal injuries seems clear cut. 

Quite the reverse. The only criminal offence you have identified is using a vehicle without an MOT, which cannot possibly have caused or contributed to the collision.

Apart from that, the purpose of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is to compensate "people who have been physically or mentally injured because they were the victim of a violent crime in England, Scotland or Wales.

You have not, by any stretch of the imagination, been the victim of violent crime.

"

400ixl

tony6919 said:

The third party insurer is claiming that because I was leaving a car park/ junction, their vehicle had right of way and that I am liable for accident. 
The insurers seem to be dragging their feet and criminal injuries seems clear cut. 

And they could well be right if they were established on the main route and you have pulled out of a side entrance. It will really depend on the exact circumstances.

Sounds like the traffic stopped and you pulled out from the nearside across the traffic to cross onto lane going in the other direction and as you emerged between the cars there was another going in the same direction as the stopped traffic going down the outside which ran into you. If that is the case, you may have a battle on your hands.

Has this been dragged out over 18 months since the accident?

Manxman_in_exile

Couldn't walk for 6 months and couldn't work for 18 months?

Why have you delayed getting a personal injuries lawyer in your corner?  Do you know that the limitation period for an injury claim is three years?

Doesn't your own motor insurance provide some sort of legal cover to assist you in suing a third party for personal injury?  

If not, I'd suggest you find a NWNF firm specialising in personal injury pronto.  Time is ticking and evidence might be getting lost...

tony6919

It has been dragging out for 18+ months. the point of contact could be argued as to being on the main route as the single lane expands into left only/ straight on/ right only at the lights. cctv shows the traffic stopped and the lead vehicle allowing my exit. although it does not clearly show plate number and the lead vehicle does a quick exit. 

DanDare999

tony6919 said:

It has been dragging out for 18+ months. the point of contact could be argued as to being on the main route as the single lane expands into left only/ straight on/ right only at the lights. cctv shows the traffic stopped and the lead vehicle allowing my exit. although it does not clearly show plate number and the lead vehicle does a quick exit. 

And why do you think driving beyond that vehicle into the path of another isn't your fault?

molerat

tony6919 said:

It has been dragging out for 18+ months. the point of contact could be argued as to being on the main route as the single lane expands into left only/ straight on/ right only at the lights. cctv shows the traffic stopped and the lead vehicle allowing my exit. although it does not clearly show plate number and the lead vehicle does a quick exit. 

Are there 2 lanes on the main at the point you joined it ?

RobM99

Having no MOT mighgt not have caused an accident but the condition of the car might have done e.g. failed brakes!