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

raskazz

chappers, yet again, I refer you to posts earlier in the thread (especially the link to a similar discussion) and suggest you read them before responding further. As has been pointed out almost ad nauseam, and by *MF* most recently, the position is that a lack of a valid MOT/unroadworthiness can lead to a rejection of a claim but does not automatically lead to rejection of a claim, or automatically lead to you being "technically uninsured" as you erroneously claimed.

To reiterate:

An insurer can only reject a claim on grounds of breach of condition if the circumstances of the claim are connected with the breach.

So an insurer can only reject a claim on grounds of breach of a roadworthiness condition if the unroadworthiness contributed to or caused the claim.

This is verifiable here: http://www.fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1 - rule 8.1.2, subsection 3.

chappers

Think there is a definite splitting of hairs here.

Whilst I fully agree that even in the event of there being a valid MOT certificate, that ther could still be a claim that the vehicle was unroadworthy.

In the event of an accident where damage has been done to a vehicle for example the brakes are damaged, then an insurer will in the eevnt of there not being a valid MOT say how do you know that the brakes were roadworthy before the accident and not causal to it.
If you have no other proof as to the roadworthiness of your vehicle, then how can you expect to defend against your insurers position that your car was unroadworthy.

This is what is happening..insurers ARE using the lack of MOT as coroborating(sp) evidence that a car is unroadworthy and it is up to you to prove otherwise.

I have never said that a lack of MOT would automatically lead to the rejection of a claim but that it can do and often leads to a partial acceptance , particularly with regards to a third party.

If you want to carry on thinking that you are insured regardless, when insurers are refusing to pay out when a valid MOT is not in place then that is upto you.

I will agree to split one hair down the middle with you, being technically insured or technically uninsured is only haf the battle it's whether you get the payout that counts and i know which side i would rather be on.

C_Ronaldo

lisyloo wrote: »

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

i dont need to as im aware of when my mot is due to run out and so i get it tested before it runs out

lisyloo

i dont need to as im aware of when my mot is due to run out and so i get it tested before it runs out

I do that too, but mine unexpectedly failed the MOT so I DID need to find out the posistion regarding both the legality and the insurance situation for driving as the MOT station could not offer the repair.

You never know, one day you could find yourself in a similar position despite being organised.

lisyloo

i know which side i would rather be on.

So just out of interest chappers, in my situation (failed MOT, but previous one still in date, problem with rear seat belt anchorage) would you arrange for the car to be towed?

Just interested really.

I didn't arrange for a tow as I was very confident that my defect was not a safety issue and would not cause an accident (whilst carrying no passengers).

chappers

I believe that your failed MOT now supercedes your existing valid one, However you can definitely drive a car with no MOT to a pre arranged MOT and I also believe that you can drive a failed car to be repaired within the confines of the MOT retesting conditions.

raskazz

There is no 'splitting of hairs'.

Let me remind you what you posted above:

"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."

This is INCORRECT, both in the nonsense assertion that an insurer would cover a third party claim but not your own (it would not), and you are NOT 'technically uninsured' if your car has no MOT.

On the point of third party claims, the roadworthiness condition is a general condition. If it is breached and the breach contributed to or caused the accident then the policy as a whole is ineffective, not just the accidental damage section. The insurer may be forced to settle the third party claim as Road Traffic Act insurer, however it will then look to recover it's outlay from the policyholder.

If the breach did not contribute to the accident then the third party will be indemnified for injury/damage as the policyholder will be for damage to the insured vehicle.

I have referenced the FSA's rulebook on the matter and you still seem to deny that my explanation of the situation is correct. I suggest you reread the thread. I don't think it could be made any clearer. Am I talking in Martian?

C_Ronaldo

lisyloo wrote: »

I do that too, but mine unexpectedly failed the MOT so I DID need to find out the posistion regarding both the legality and the insurance situation for driving as the MOT station could not offer the repair.

You never know, one day you could find yourself in a similar position despite being organised.

im not saying you didnt need to find out the position re the legality and insurance siutation,

i wont find myself in a similar position as things to do with my car i find are important and so i make sure they get done before anything else

lisyloo

i wont find myself in a similar position

Ok fine.
If you don't want to re-asses the facts for your own benefit (post #34) then at least take a note not to post your incorrect beliefs (post #25).

I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I do make an attempt to correct my own knowledge when I find out that I've said something wrong.
If you don't want to that's entirely up to you, but now you know it's wrong, don't post the incorrect stuff.

I do hope you never get caught out, but I don't believe it's possible to be exempt from it even if you are dilligent and organised (which I am).
e.g. it's quite possible not to realise a tail light or brake light bulb has gone, because you can't see them on your own.

*MF*

raskazz wrote: »

Am I talking in Martian?

Me Offer Translate??