will my car insurance claim be refused because i had 2 bald tyres?

missile

lisyloo wrote: »

The OP was not told his tyres needing replacing. He was told they were close to the legal limit.

Whilst clearly he/she is responsible for making sure they don't go below that limit I do sympathise.

I am in a similar situation myself and I KNOW if I go the quickfit that they will tell me they DO replacing (regardless of whether it's true or not) and therefore I'm reluctant to go. Being young, female and attractive (he he) makes it worse because they assume you are an air head.
If only these companies were trustworthy and didn't tell porky pies then I'd be more liekly to have them checked regularly, but I'm waiting until I can get to my trustworthy mechanic so I sympathise with the OP.

OP was told in November tyres were close to limit and had an accident last week. I would expect most would have found time to change them in three months. It is not terribly clever to drive on bald tyres, particularly over winter.

It was the police who said the tyres were bald, they seldom tell porkies. Not knowing your vehicle is unfit (or being blonde) is no excuse.

Being young, female and an air head = can you not check your own tyres? !!!!!! it is not rocket science.

PS: I was not having a pop at OP he/she admitted his error. I am sure he realises he/she was not only risking his life, what if he/she had hit a kiddie rather than a parked car?

**woody123**

Sorry to hijack this thread..

But i've just been told my rear tyres are cracking on the tread, would this also invalidate a claim

Thanks..

Badger_Lady

I believe it states in the highway code [something like] you should do a visual check of your tyres each day before driving to make sure there are no cracks or bulges. You should also measure your tread weekly using a guage easily obtainable from any garage. I also check air pressure every time I refuel (about once every 3 weeks).

Please, please, anyone - if your tyres aren't in good condition, get them changed And, although OP's tyres weren't actually below the legal limit back in November, it sounds like they were below the "common sense" safety limit - I would have changed them immediately, not waited until they went bald.

Sorry, I know this is slightly off-topic, but it's an important thing to note. If you follow these guidelines, your insurance company won't ever have a problem with the condition of your tyres.

missile

Good for you badger lady. I feel it is stupid and sexist to suggest keeping car in road worthy condition is beyond any woman. The Dingle ladies, are better mechanics than the Dingle males!

missile

IMHO everyone has a responsibility. Even your MIL ought to be able to do the simple checks as stated by Badger_Lady. If not, she should not have a license.

If you can't afford £5 for a tyre guage and find the tread less than the width of a fifty pence coin, they need changing. (Like most drivers?) I change my tyres, long before they reach the legal limit.

carolinosourus

Exactly, if the OP was told 3 months ago that the tires were nearing the legal limit then something should have been done a lot sooner than Feb...

noh

Surely it's a matter of safety? Tyres should be replaced long before they reach the minimum legal tread depth.
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/tyres.htm
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/tread_depth.htm


Nigel

V_tricky

Hi,

I've put below the relevant policy wordings from the top three insurers in England - I assume that all insurers will have similar wordings in their policy booklets.

Basically, it says that your car must be maintained and only used in a roadworthy condition.

You had fair warning that your tyres needed attention, and three months down the line, you obviously should have known that they would have required urgent attention - even if you didn't do the weekly checks recommended in the Highway Code.

So now we know from your post that you were knowingly driving on dodgy tyres, and I'm not going to moralise on whether you should have changed them before or not - I think the facts kinda speak for themselves, and from what you have said, you accept that you should have replaced them.

Now you're in a bit of a predicament, because not only have you been caught with your pants down because you had an accident because you didn't replace them, unfortunately PC Plod has also caught you bang ter rights.

Now what you must do is ring your insurance underwriting department and dislcose your conviction (when it happens). They will probably, because of the nature of the conviction tell their claims department.

If you don't disclose this to your insurer, then you're only putting yourself further at risk in the future.

Once they send an engineer out to inspect your car, or the garage does an estimate on it and sends photo's to the insurers in house engineers, it will become very clear that you have breached your contract with them (by failing to maintain).

Ignorance is no defence - but then of course you couldn't plead that anyway as you had already been warned some three months earlier.

Once the insurer is aware of the situation, they will still be obliged under the RTA 1988 to pay for the third party claim.

HOWEVER....

As you have breached your policy wording, they may not just reject this claim, they may void your policy - in which case, not only will you be stuck for your own repairs, they will also chase you down for the third party's claims cost (including, but not limited to, repairs, car hire, and any injury claim the third party might have submitted).

You will also have to disclose that you have had a policy voided to any future insurers (who share information anyway). (In fact, even if they proceed with the third party claim and dont claim the money back from you, they still might not invite renewal).

This is of course the worst case scenario, and I don't want to be a prophet of doom, but really, you knew that driving on bald tyres was a stupid idea and all credit to you for holding your hands up (even if they were in handcuffs at the time lol)

I hope you manage to sort it out & that you'll be able to chalk this one up to experience (and next time - try not to have your MOT done near Christmas?)




Morethan:
E ROADWORTHINESS AND REASONABLE CARE
Your car must be maintained and only used in a roadworthy condition. You and any other person in charge of your car must take all reasonable steps to protect it against loss or damage. Your claim will not be paid unless you meet these conditions:
a) when there is no one in your car, it must be locked and the keys removed from its vicinity
b) your keys are as valuable as your car and you must make sure they have been secured against theft.
These conditions will apply whether your car is in the public highway or not.

Direct Line:
6 Taking care of your car
You must:
• make sure your car is roadworthy;
• take all reasonable steps to protect your car and its contents
from loss or damage;
• make sure you keep property left in an open or convertible car
in a locked boot or locked glove compartment; and
• allow us to examine your car at any reasonable time if we ask you.

Norwich Union:
2 Your duty to prevent loss or damage
a You must take all reasonable steps to
prevent loss or damage to your car.
b You must maintain your car in good
condition.

V_tricky

NB

It is the drivers responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is maintained and roadworthy.

Having an MOT once a year is not ensuring that your vehicle is maintained and roadworthy.

The OP was given a notice that he was CLOSE to the legal limit. If nothing else, this should have alerted the OP to make SURE that he checked regularly.

If he could check though himself, it's his responsibility to get someone to check them for him.

Clearly he didn't, and he doesn't seem to dispute that either, fair play to him too for not trying to wriggle out of it.

Ian_W

I don't know whether it's still the case - but it certainly used to be - that when the police attend and report an accident, as appears to be the case here, the insurers often pay for a copy of the police report as it provides an independent assessment of the circumstances.

If that happens it won't be a matter of the OP notifying a conviction - the bald tyres will almost certainly be mentioned as a cause or contributor to the bump.

As V_tricky says, whilst the insurers will pay out to the 3rd party they may well be entitled to persue the OP for their costs as he is in breach of his insurance contract with them. Whether this is likely or not I really couldn't say but it certainly is open to them.

Not stated to "flame" or frighten the OP but both are quite possible in the circumstances - and you did ask!