Car Write off - but no MOT - Please help!!!

Wig

Here is one example of a recent thread on this subject, with a happy ending - sort of -.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=577639

masmas2001

Wig wrote: »

There are one or two companies who do put a clause on MOT into their policy books, one such is Endsliegh (recently revealed on this forum).

What you need to do is either tell us who your insurer is, we can then check for you. or read your policy booklet and look under General exceptions/exclusions it's usually found near the back of the book.

If it says "We require you to keep your car in a roadworthy condition" Then that means they have no exclusion policy on missing MOTs

If it says, "We require you to keep your car in a roadworthy condition and except where regulations allow a valid MOT certificate maintained" That means they have tried to include an MOT requirement into the policy.


Nowthis is IMPORTANT, in EITHER case the insurance company may try to absolve themselves of any cover to your car, citing a lack of MOT. If your policy does not mention MOT, just tell them that you are not in breach of the policy as it is laid out in the booklet. If your policy does mention the MOT, then you can still argue that the clause is unfair, the lack of MOT is irrellevant to the condition of the vehicle, and therefore did not contribute to the accident. If you don't like their decision you can refer the case to the Insurance Ombudsman.

Good luck and don't be a stranger, we can only help people like you if you come back to help us understand exactly what happened in your claim. PLEASE COME BACK and update this thread (you will find this thread via your profile on MSE.) when the case is concluded.

The insurance company is 'privilege insurance'

masmas2001

It says in the terms & conditions to 'make sure the car is roadworthy'. Nothing specific to MOT.

Wig

Ok, I presume the insurance company has asked you to send the MOT cert? That's why you said you were preparing documents to send... If they haven't asked for it - don't tell them.

If they have asked for it.
It may be worth trying, phoning or writing to them (better written) asking them their reason for requiring you to look through all your files to fish out an MOT doc, mentioning that an MOT is not part of your policy and in any event would have no bearing on the claim. See what their reply is, they might back down (it has been known to happen).

If they say it is for valuation purposes, they might have a point, it is arguable as to whether it really affects value, as you didn't have a chance to see if it would have passed or not.
At this point you should declare you have found out you don't have the MOT, and take it from there, see what they say about the value etc.

vaio

Wig wrote: »

There are one or two companies who do put a clause on MOT into their policy books, one such is Endsliegh (recently revealed on this forum).

What you need to do is either tell us who your insurer is, we can then check for you. or read your policy booklet and look under General exceptions/exclusions it's usually found near the back of the book.

If it says "We require you to keep your car in a roadworthy condition" Then that means they have no exclusion policy on missing MOTs

If it says, "We require you to keep your car in a roadworthy condition and except where regulations allow a valid MOT certificate maintained" That means they have tried to include an MOT requirement into the policy.


Now this is IMPORTANT, in EITHER case the insurance company may try to absolve themselves of any cover to your car, citing a lack of MOT. If your policy does not mention MOT, just tell them that you are not in breach of the policy as it is laid out in the booklet. If your policy does mention the MOT, then you can still argue that the clause is unfair, the lack of MOT is irrelevant to the condition of the vehicle, and therefore did not contribute to the accident. If you don't like their decision you can refer the case to the Insurance Ombudsman.

Good luck and don't be a stranger, we can only help people like you if you come back to help us understand exactly what happened in your claim. PLEASE COME BACK and update this thread (you will find this thread via your profile on MSE.) when the case is concluded.

Good post although as far as I am aware despite the numerous “no mot = no insurance” posts no one has actually reported a company that says this.

Privilege insurance says “you must keep your car roadworthy”

Endsleigh is a broker and deals with 50 different insurance companies

Not sure about your unfair clause argument, although I like the idea.

Wig

I noticed Endsleigh was a broker, when I checked, but even so they do have their own policy booklet and it does mention the MOT clause.

I don't pretend to understand how an Endsleigh policy works in practice because they are a broker. It may be possible to ask Endlsleigh for the policy of the insuring company, and then override Endsliegh's clause.

jonathon

the phrase kept in a roadworthy condition keeps comeing up surly to be in a road worthy condition it must have an mot

thescouselander

jonathon wrote: »

the phrase kept in a roadworthy condition keeps comeing up surly to be in a road worthy condition it must have an mot

Not really. A car could have no MOT but if it were to be tested it could pass. On the other hand a car with an MOT certificate may not be in a road worthy condition.

All an MOT tells you is that the car was roadworthy on the date of the test.

jonathon

thescouselander wrote: »

Not really. A car could have no MOT but if it were to be tested it could pass. On the other hand a car with an MOT certificate may not be in a road worthy condition.

All an MOT tells you is that the car was roadworthy on the date of the test.

I agree but as the car is know a write off you can no longer mot it. and the way i read the comments as long as my car is roadworty why bother with an mot, also the op does not say if thay are going to be prosecuted for no mot.

Wig

Being prosecuted for MOT is a seperate issue to an insurance claim. All we are concerned with in this thread is whether the OP has insurance cover. S/he does.
S/he very well might be prosecuted, but that is a seperate issue.