Someone Shunted Me From Behind - I have no MOT - Forgot to renew it!!!

katiekittykat

lisyloo wrote: »

There is a difference between not having the correct paperwork (beareaucratic issue) and not maintaining you car (safety issue).

If the OP simply forgot and it is not in anyway related to the accident then the insurers do not get off the hook.
If the car had not been maintained correctly and there was a roadworthiness issue that led to any accident e.g. failed brakes or poor tyres, then the insurer who have a valid reason to reject the claim.

Like MF, I am not condoning forgetting the MOT but it doesn't automatically mean that the car was in a bad condition.
The safety issues are seperate from having the correct paperwork.

The OP could probably be prosecuted for driving without a valid MOT but that's a totally seperate issue from the insurance.

Thanks for explaining - i understand now

xxx

chappers

the usual way if you have no MOT is that your insurer would normally cover a third party claim but would not cover any claim you made for your own vehicle, this is usually as an unwritten gesture of goodwill as technically you are uninsured.
As this accident is not your own fault you should be fine though, you should be claiming on the other party's insurance.

raskazz

chappers wrote: »

the usual way if you have no MOT is that your insurer would normally cover a third party claim but would not cover any claim you made for your own vehicle, this is usually as an unwritten gesture of goodwill as technically you are uninsured.
As this accident is not your own fault you should be fine though, you should be claiming on the other party's insurance.

Again, this is incorrect. Sometimes I do wonder whether people bother reading threads before contributing to them.

C_Ronaldo

I always thought it was a requirement to have a valid mot to have insurance except when you drive it to a test centre to have the mot

lisyloo

I always thought it was a requirement to have a valid mot to have insurance

I think you need to re-assess your opinion in the light of the information that has been presented.

*MF*

Hands up who's telepathic?

Bet there's more than just me who knows exactly what raskazz is thinking right now :rotfl:



*Clue* ... It starts " Sometimes I do wonder ..."

lisyloo

Bet there's more than just me who knows exactly what raskazz is thinking right now :rotfl:

RTFM by any chance :rotfl:

tinkerbell84

Hmmmmmmmm (from another thread)

Joey122 wrote: »

Hi All,

I was just in a car accident where the other driver went straight into the back of me - I jumped on the brakes and he went into the back of me as the lights changed.

He seems like a nice person but when I called the police they basically said to exchange details and call the insurance -

Now what happens if he changes his mind and claims I reversed into him? Or he was not there in the first place?

Some damage was done to the buumped and the bumper might need to be replaced at the back - Any rough idea how much this would cost?

What is advice for when being in an accident? Always look for a witness?

Hope your brake lights were working, else that MOT may well be an issue. Why did you need to 'jump' on the brakes at traffic lights? You should always be ready to stop.

chappers

raskazz wrote: »

Again, this is incorrect. Sometimes I do wonder whether people bother reading threads before contributing to them.

Well I know of two incidences where this has been exactly the case, have just spoken to my friend who is an insurance broker and he knows of many more such cases.

He says insurers can, and are more frequently using the lack of an MOT certificate as a statement that a vehicle is unroadworthy, particularly with moderating higher value claims.
He did also say though that this isn't difinitive and there have been succesful appeals against loss adjusters claims, where they have based an opinion of unroadworthyness solely on the absence of an MOT certificate.

*MF*

chappers wrote: »

Well I know of two incidences where this has been exactly the case, have just spoken to my friend who is an insurance broker and he knows of many more such cases.

He says insurers can, and are more frequently using the lack of an MOT certificate as a statement that a vehicle is unroadworthy, particularly with moderating higher value claims.
He did also say though that this isn't difinitive and there have been succesful appeals against loss adjusters claims, where they have based an opinion of unroadworthyness solely on the absence of an MOT certificate.

It is well possible that when an Insurer considers a vehicle as unroadworthy and seeks to refuse a claim - the lack of a current MOT forms part of the reasoning - but it is the unroadworthiness of the vehicle which is the root cause of the claim refusal - ie, claims are also refused where there is a valid MOT - why would that be - because the car is unroadworthy even with a current MOT.

That is why your Broker friend said the lack of an MOT was not definitive, and why there could be successful appeals - it is not the MOT or its absence that is the key factor - it is whether with or without an MOT - the car is roadworthy and whether in turn that key factor had a part to play in the claim.