RTA with third party having no Mot.

DanDare999

tony6919 said:

marcia_ said:

 I'm currently going through criminal injuries. 

 If you think criminal injuries will compensate you £2k a month you are mistaken. 

 Loss of earnings is limited to the equivalent of statutory sick pay. 

 Criminal injuries is also limited to crimes that have been reported to the police as such. 

That seems a bit unfair. I raised the issue because that is all I have been getting statutory sick pay. 
The police where at the scene, the driver didn't speak English when details were to be exchanged. And the validity of the vehicle was questioned at the scene.
I had to ask a solicitor I knew to get in touch with the police to get TP details because they did not give them to me at the scene, nor did they return my calls for several days just so I could pass onto my insurance.

You want advice for free yet you drip feed information. So what was the outcome of the police investigation?

400ixl

I would first of all be focussing on getting blame agreed between the insurers. This is key to you progressing anything. Having the limited information you have provided I think you will be lucky to get a 50/50 split if anything at all. It looks more like you are at fault as you are crossing the highway.

If you are found to be at partial or full fault it will influence any compensation you can claim unless you have sufficient cover on your own policy to cover yourself as the 1st party claimant.

tony6919

molerat said:

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.

1 lane wide.. to my right. 3 lanes to the left of exit/ entrance of car park. point of contact is as single lane starts to open. my question was, do I wait for liability or look at an injuries claim for compensation due to a time limit? 

DanDare999

tony6919 said:

molerat said:

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.

1 lane wide.. to my right. 3 lanes to the left of exit/ entrance of car park. point of contact is as single lane starts to open. my question was, do I wait for liability or look at an injuries claim for compensation due to a time limit? 

How can you get compensation until liability is decided. If you're 100% at fault then there's no compo coming your way. 

shiraz99

tony6919 said:

molerat said:

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 ?

no, 1 lane to the right of the car park entrance/ exit. And to the left it opens to 3 lanes at traffic light to direct traffic, it's all a learning curve. I've discovered there have been several accidents identical to mine leaving this car park.

Any chance you could tell us where this is so we can see for ourselves on Google maps/street view?

tony6919

MX5huggy said:

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? 

hmm... I didn't just pull out. my photo's of the accident, show collision partly on right facing lane, meaning TP was partially on wrong side of road being single lane. so didn't expect another vehicle to be travelling there. But hey.. I turn left now and take the long route... also apps such as gov.uk allows you to check vehicle MOT'S and Insurance and it's dead easy to report. It's costing me at mo, but people can't complain when vehicles get clamped and towed. I wouldn't want what happened to me to happen to anyone else. 

tony6919

marcia_ said:

DanDare999 said:

marcia_ said:

Mught be unfair, I agree but those are the rules 

 Police at the scene doesn't equal you reporting and giving a statement about a violent crime

It certainly covers that part.

So you got a crime reference number relating to violent crime? 

I eventually got crime number. I have never been in this situation and don't know anyone who has, so all this is to find information. I presumed 'criminal injures' dealt with injuries relating to crime, but someone has posted 'personal injuries', it's all learning. 

caprikid1

"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 think if liability is yet to be agreed it's not looking good !.

No MOT is red herring forget it, it is going to make no difference to absolutely anything from your perspective. The only thing it could do is if you are found to blame it might make the payout to the other party less for their vehicle.

Fundamentally if you pull out onto a road you should ensure the road is clear, it wasn't and you still pulled out.

With the amount of information provided we really cannot give good advice but the lack of MOT whilst frustrating won't change anything unless you can prove faulty brakes.

400ixl

Absolutely agree, no one would wish injury through a car accident on anyone.

However, it doesn't necessarily make them at fault if they were on the other side of the road provided they weren't solid lines or hatched areas. You were still the one moving across the flow of traffic. But glad to see you no longer try that risky manoeuvre.

Whether you expected anyone to be there is not really relevant, you need to be observant. They could equally claim they weren't expecting someone to be pushing their way out across the flow of traffic either.

Again, the status of their MOT is irrelevant, you need to get that out of your head as anything to do with how you proceed.

You need to urgently speak to your insurer and understand what is happening with liability and understand what is happening, and what the timeline is too resolve, through the courts if that is where they are willing to defend it that far. I assume you have uninsured loss recovery with your policy? What have they said?

DanDare999

tony6919 said:

marcia_ said:

DanDare999 said:

marcia_ said:

Mught be unfair, I agree but those are the rules 

 Police at the scene doesn't equal you reporting and giving a statement about a violent crime

It certainly covers that part.

So you got a crime reference number relating to violent crime? 

I eventually got crime number. I have never been in this situation and don't know anyone who has, so all this is to find information. I presumed 'criminal injures' dealt with injuries relating to crime, but someone has posted 'personal injuries', it's all learning. 

For what? From what you've posted so far there isn't a crime subject of a crime report. Careless driving and no mot certainly aren't.