RTA with third party having no Mot.

Car_54

RobM99 said:

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

It might, but could it be proved 18 months after the event?

tony6919

With regards to criminal injuries. Due to the accident I had an operation on my knee which left me unable to walk or return to work, I was house bound also which has a physical and mental effect. I had to use savings and loan monies to pay my bills as my income dropped by over £2000 per month which has been ongoing for 18+ months.
Driving while knowing that a vehicle has no Mot surely contributes to any accident as that vehicle should not be on the road without an Mot.
I understand that people can forget to Mot by a couple of days/ week but several months is an issue. By breaking the Law people should accept accountability.

DanDare999

tony6919 said:

With regards to criminal injuries. Due to the accident I had an operation on my knee which left me unable to walk or return to work, I was house bound also which has a physical and mental effect. I had to use savings and loan monies to pay my bills as my income dropped by over £2000 per month which has been ongoing for 18+ months.
Driving while knowing that a vehicle has no Mot surely contributes to any accident as that vehicle should not be on the road without an Mot.
I understand that people can forget to Mot by a couple of days/ week but several months is an issue. By breaking the Law people should accept accountability.

No, it doesn't. 

How would having an MOT have prevented that accident?

400ixl

The MOT status is irrelevant to your claim, they were either at fault, or you were at fault. Very rarely can the reason for the MOT failure be considered as the direct cause of the accident as far as the 3rd party is concerned.

For the insured it could be more of an issue with their insurer refusing to pay all or some of their claim, and the police may prosecute them, but that has nothing to do with you.

Having no MOT does not make them at fault. If you have pulled across traffic and emerged into the path of a vehicle moving on that main route then it is likely you are the at fault party.

Are you claiming through your own insurance who are then claiming from the 3rd party on your behalf, or are you trying to claim directly from the 3rd party (either engaging directly or through a loss management company)?

Car_54

tony6919 said:

Driving while knowing that a vehicle has no Mot surely contributes to any accident as that vehicle should not be on the road without an Mot.

I think you may be  equating "No MOT" with "vehicle in a dangerous condition".

The law regards the former as a relatively trivial offence (£100 penalty, no points), and it definitely is not evidence of the latter.

Muskey

It reads that you pulled out in front of a vehicle which had priority/right of way and you are trying to deny blame based on lack of MOT. That is irrelevant except to the Police, if they were indeed called to an injury accident. Criminal injuries probably will not apply as you seem to have caused the accident, so you would be claiming against yourself.

user1977

If you can't even prove civil liability (i.e. on the balance of probabilities), I don't see how you're going to show that it's criminal (beyond reasonable doubt)? Especially if the police haven't shown any interest in there being a crime involved.

Nearlyold

You say the driver that hit the side of your vehicle was overtaking a single line of stationary traffic held at a red light, what you haven't made clear is whether the driver that hit you was in the correct lane for the direction he was going in or was he on the wrong side of the road for the direction he was travelling.

If he was on the correct side of the road with regard to the lane he was in - i.e. the lane he was in is for traffic travelling in the direction he was going, then it would appear the accident would be entirely your fault, though there may be some joint responsibility if his speed was excessive 

How many lanes wide is the road?

molerat

Nearlyold said:

You say the driver that hit the side of your vehicle was overtaking a single line of stationary traffic held at a red light, what you haven't made clear is whether the driver that hit you was in the correct lane for the direction he was going in or was he on the wrong side of the road for the direction he was travelling.

If he was on the correct side of the road with regard to the lane he was in - i.e. the lane he was in is for traffic travelling in the direction he was going, then it would appear the accident would be entirely your fault, though there may be some joint responsibility if his speed was excessive 

How many lanes wide is the road?

I asked that specific question earlier

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

but OP seems to want to skirt that particular question having earlier made a vague reference to 2 lanes at the traffic lights and pin their hopes on the "no MOT means the car shouldn't have been there" angle.

We have a particular 2 lane main road junction near us that is set out pedestrian crossing - junction from left - three lanes into roundabout.  Traffic in the left lane will stop short of the pedestrian crossing when they can't get to the roundabout and cars just shoot out of the junction to get to the right hand lane of the roundabout.

MX5huggy

tony6919 said

Driving while knowing that a vehicle has no Mot surely contributes to any accident as that vehicle should not be on the road without an Mot.
I understand that people can forget to Mot by a couple of days/ week but several months is an issue. By breaking the Law people should accept accountability.

I drove around for 6 ish months once without one, just completely confused expiration dates across 3 cars. If you’d asked me I would said yes it’s MOTed. If some half whit had pulled out in front of me I would have claimed happily. 

The day I found I didn’t have an MOT was really inconvenient, because do you dare drive another mile without it?