Non-Fault Accident, Lapsed MOT

[dacouch]

Blue Oval84 said:

Always go directly to the third party insurer to make the claim if you can. If he contacts his own insurer they will almost certainly just refer him to an Accident Management Company anyway.

Personally I would go via your own Insurer if the car is likely to be a write off, this is because your own Insurer has to abide by the Ombudsman. If you go directly to the third party then they do not need to abide by the Ombudsman although many Insurers will use the FOS guidance as good practice.

For a write off this would mean your own Insurer could reduce the write off by a maximum of 10% although if the FOS felt the car would have passed an MOT anyway they could decide there would be no reduction.

If you went directly to the other Insurers they would not normally abide by the Ombudsman guidance on MOTs which means they will normally reduce the write off value typically paying the "Trade" value which could mean you receive between 10% and 25% less than if you used your own Insurer.

It should be noted that using your own Insurer could mean they deduct the remaining (Premium) instalments from a claims settlement so this should be factored in when assessing whether to claim from your own or the other Insurers and that you will have your excess deducted from your settlement but this can normally be recovered from the fault party. It's also worth noting that most Insurers who carry the MOT requirement in their policy (Who tend to be at the cheap and uncheerful end of the market) will often try and enforce the MOT requirement. This is often due to their staff not understanding they cannot do it or knowing they cannot enforce it but trying it on anyway. A polite call referring them to ICOBS 8.1.2 or if that does not work an "Official Complaint"

"A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is

(2) in relation to contracts entered into or variations agreed on or after 6 April 2013, for misrepresentation by a customer and the misrepresentation is not a qualifying misrepresentation; or2
(3) for a breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach"

(3) being the relevant part

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/ICOBS/8/1

and the relevant part from the Ombudsman

"13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain a specific requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. When deciding whether it was reasonable for an insurer to reject a consumer’s claim, we will look for evidence that the loss or damage was mostly likely caused – or was significantly contributed to – because the vehicle was not roadworthy.

An insurer can also reduce a payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. In these cases, we will look for evidence that the condition of the condition of the vehicle – or parts of it – were poor to decide whether this deduction is fair.

If the vehicle did not have a current MOT certificate, we will consider how likely it was that the vehicle would have passed an MOT test. If we decide – on the balance of probabilities – that the vehicle would have failed the test, we are likely to say that a deduction of up to 10% is reasonable."

It's worth noting that it's up to the Insurer to prove the car was "Unroadworthy" and that this caused or significantly caused the accident.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...

If you do need to go down the "Official Complaint" root due to your Insurer trying to deny a claim due to lack of an MOT it's worth mentioning you reserve the right to seek compensation for loss of use due to them incorrectly refusing the claim http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...

[9mm]

dacouch said:

Blue Oval84 said:

Always go directly to the third party insurer to make the claim if you can. If he contacts his own insurer they will almost certainly just refer him to an Accident Management Company anyway.

Personally I would go via your own Insurer if the car is likely to be a write off, this is because your own Insurer has to abide by the Ombudsman. If you go directly to the third party then they do not need to abide by the Ombudsman although many Insurers will use the FOS guidance as good practice.

For a write off this would mean your own Insurer could reduce the write off by a maximum of 10% although if the FOS felt the car would have passed an MOT anyway they could decide there would be no reduction.

If you went directly to the other Insurers they would not normally abide by the Ombudsman guidance on MOTs which means they will normally reduce the write off value typically paying the "Trade" value which could mean you receive between 10% and 25% less than if you used your own Insurer.

It should be noted that using your own Insurer could mean they deduct the remaining (Premium) instalments from a claims settlement so this should be factored in when assessing whether to claim from your own or the other Insurers and that you will have your excess deducted from your settlement but this can normally be recovered from the fault party. It's also worth noting that most Insurers who carry the MOT requirement in their policy (Who tend to be at the cheap and uncheerful end of the market) will often try and enforce the MOT requirement. This is often due to their staff not understanding they cannot do it or knowing they cannot enforce it but trying it on anyway. A polite call referring them to ICOBS 8.1.2 or if that does not work an "Official Complaint"

"A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is

(2) in relation to contracts entered into or variations agreed on or after 6 April 2013, for misrepresentation by a customer and the misrepresentation is not a qualifying misrepresentation; or2
(3) for a breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach"

(3) being the relevant part

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/ICOBS/8/1

and the relevant part from the Ombudsman

"13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain a specific requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. When deciding whether it was reasonable for an insurer to reject a consumer’s claim, we will look for evidence that the loss or damage was mostly likely caused – or was significantly contributed to – because the vehicle was not roadworthy.

An insurer can also reduce a payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. In these cases, we will look for evidence that the condition of the condition of the vehicle – or parts of it – were poor to decide whether this deduction is fair.

If the vehicle did not have a current MOT certificate, we will consider how likely it was that the vehicle would have passed an MOT test. If we decide – on the balance of probabilities – that the vehicle would have failed the test, we are likely to say that a deduction of up to 10% is reasonable."

It's worth noting that it's up to the Insurer to prove the car was "Unroadworthy" and that this caused or significantly caused the accident.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...

If you do need to go down the "Official Complaint" root due to your Insurer trying to deny a claim due to lack of an MOT it's worth mentioning you reserve the right to seek compensation for loss of use due to them incorrectly refusing the claim http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...

This should be a sticky and tattooed on the body of anyone who claims that no MOT voids your insurance.

[dacouch]

9mm said:

This should be a sticky and tattooed on the body of anyone who claims that no MOT voids your insurance.

Annoyingly the same Insurers keep trying to enforce the no MOT no cover, I've been involved in helping quite a few people fight their Insurers and it tends to be the same Insurers each time. If the underwriting staff have not read and understood ICOBS and the Ombudsmans guidance then they're not doing their job correctly. Equally if customers are making Official Complaints which by their very nature are required to be properly investigated and recorded along with relevant actions taken as a result then they're either not dealing with Official Complaints correctly or chosing to ignore their mistakes.

Why Insurers persist in putting the MOT requirement in their Policies I don't know as these are obviously drafted with a huge amount of care to ensure the wordings are correct

[vikingaero]

dacouch said:

Why Insurers persist in putting the MOT requirement in their Policies I don't know as these are obviously drafted with a huge amount of care to ensure the wordings are correct

Because a decent percentage of people will fight their ground, another decent percentage will get advice online and then go onto make an Ombudsman complaint, and most importantly a decent percentage will believe The-man-dahn-da-pub-says and accept the loss. To that Insurer the man-dahn-da-pub has help them save money.

[Welshbeef]

Isn't it the law to report all accidents to your insurance company even if you do not wish to make any claims. So they need to tell them either way.


One question IF they had been caught driving without MOT what would have been the fine and charge?

[dacouch]

Welshbeef said:

Isn't it the law to report all accidents to your insurance company even if you do not wish to make any claims. So they need to tell them either way.


One question IF they had been caught driving without MOT what would have been the fine and charge?

About £100 fine if the police can be bothered as many would not issue on this alone unless you fail the attitude test assuming there was nothing else wrong with the car

It's worth remembering when dealing with an Insurer or someone in the pub who tells you insurance is not valid if you don't have an MOT that (If I remember correctly) it even says on the MOT certificate that it's only evidence that the car was roadworthy to pass the MOT at the time they tested. It's perfectly possible your car could become unroadworthy the following day.

[catman]

Welshbeef said:

Isn't it the law to report all accidents to your insurance company even if you do not wish to make any claims. So they need to tell them either way.

Yes it is, but he wasn't trying to circumvent the law. I was just asking how to proceed with his claim in the way that would cause him the least grief.

He has now informed his Insurer that he wishes to claim and has a recording of the third party apologising for the accident, so that helps.

I've seen the photo of his car now and I think that a write-off is likely, due to the age of his car.

Thanks

Tim

[Hungrymc]

So the law seems pretty clear and it sounds like everything will be ok. Very interesting thread and not the answer I would have expected - learn something every day!

I guess the only open point is with the age of the car, is there any possibility the third party will cling to the lack of MOT as introducing the possibility of lack of road worthiness and therefore possible contribution to the accident (I guess this is dependent upon the apparent condition of the car when / if they inspect it and the nature of the accident).

[catman]

As I said before, the condition of the car is superb for the year. He did a tour of Devon/Cornwall in it a week ago. He would rather keep the car than have it written off.

I think that the hard part will be getting a fair settlement figure if it is written-off. As I said to him, the higher their valuation, the less likely they will be to write the car off.

Tim

[catman]

His Insurer just passed him onto Albany Assistance. His alarm bells were ringing, even before he spoke to me. I looked at what they wanted to charge for the car, nearly £200 a day.

Can he insist that his Insurer actually does what they're paid for and process his claim themselves?

Thanks

Tim

[TooMany2cvs]

catman said:

I think that a write-off is likely, due to the age of his car.

That's where the lack of MOT is really going to come into play. "No MOT? Scrap value."

What is/was it, age, mileage, condition?

[dacouch]

catman said:

His Insurer just passed him onto Albany Assistance. His alarm bells were ringing, even before he spoke to me. I looked at what they wanted to charge for the car, nearly £200 a day.

Can he insist that his Insurer actually does what they're paid for and process his claim themselves?

Thanks

Tim

Is he with Admiral then?

Try googling Albany Assistance to get an idea of the type of service to expect.

They will have paid your Insurer circa £400 commission for referring you to them, they make their money from the expensive hire car and /or if you for injuries.

As I mentioned before if you claim directly from the other party or use a claims management company such as Albany you're likely to ultimately receive a smaller settlement for the car as they will take the lack of an MOT into account when valuing the car.

If you claim through your own Insurers they are bound by the Ombudsmans guidance I noted earlier eg maximum of 10% deduction. But you need to take into account they will deduct your excess which you can normally claim back from the other party and your Insurers will normally deduct any remaining premium instalments.

I strongly recommend you google Albany as they have a certain reputation

[catman]

Hi Dacouch, it's Tesco. He's already phoned Albany to tell them that he won't use them, thanks. He obviously tried going through his Insurer, but they just farmed it out.

Can he not insist on his insurer dealing with the claim directly? Makes you wonder what he paid for.

Tim

[lord trumpton]

dacouch said:

catman said:

His Insurer just passed him onto Albany Assistance. His alarm bells were ringing, even before he spoke to me. I looked at what they wanted to charge for the car, nearly £200 a day.

Can he insist that his Insurer actually does what they're paid for and process his claim themselves?

Thanks

Tim

Is he with Admiral then?

Try googling Albany Assistance to get an idea of the type of service to expect.

They will have paid your Insurer circa £400 commission for referring you to them, they make their money from the expensive hire car and /or if you for injuries.

As I mentioned before if you claim directly from the other party or use a claims management company such as Albany you're likely to ultimately receive a smaller settlement for the car as they will take the lack of an MOT into account when valuing the car.

If you claim through your own Insurers they are bound by the Ombudsmans guidance I noted earlier eg maximum of 10% deduction. But you need to take into account they will deduct your excess which you can normally claim back from the other party and your Insurers will normally deduct any remaining premium instalments.

I strongly recommend you google Albany as they have a certain reputation

Its st like this that makes our insurance so bloody expensive; companies whose sole purpose is to rip the arse out of the situation and make their money from charging ridiculous amounts of money.

[catman]

TooMany2cvs said:

That's where the lack of MOT is really going to come into play. "No MOT? Scrap value."

What is/was it, age, mileage, condition?

As has been said, maybe 10% less, as a maximum, so nothing like scrap value. I'll give out the details of the car when matters are settled.

Suffice to say that it's in very good condition, low miles and good service history for its age.

Tim

[catman]

lord trumpton said:

Its st like this that makes our insurance so bloody expensive; companies whose sole purpose is to rip the arse out of the situation and make their money from charging ridiculous amounts of money.

I agree. His problem is, if his own Insurer won't help with the claim, then he may have to use an AMC anyway.

Tim

[dacouch]

catman said:

Hi Dacouch, it's Tesco. He's already phoned Albany to tell them that he won't use them, thanks. He obviously tried going through his Insurer, but they just farmed it out.

Can he not insist on his insurer dealing with the claim directly? Makes you wonder what he paid for.

Tim

If he has comprehensive cover then of course he can insist they deal with the claim as your policy is basically a contract with them agreeing to honour valid claims.

I've had a quick scan through a Tesco Policy and it does not seem to contain the MOT requirement are you sure it contains it?

You could claim for repairs from Tesco, you could also ask the third party to provide a hire car at their cost, they should be falling over themselves to do this as they could arrange a hire car for a fraction of what Albany charge. If you mention you turned Albany down to give them a chance to arrange a cheaper hire car they will normally be very great full.

Alternatively you could try and claim for hire car and repairs from the other party, if you're confident on the phone you could try mentioning the MOT had only just expired and would they be prepared to pay the standard value of the car eg basing it on it having an MOT as you have been so kind to sack Albany off which has saved them upwards of £1k. There's a good chance this will work, if they so no then you can either carry on claiming through them (They would probably give you the "Trade" value listed in Glasses etc) or claim through Tesco for the write off as per previous posts.

Personally I would try ringing them, ask for their "Innocent third party dept" or department that deals with third parties. If they have had the claim reported and accept responsibility there's a good chance they you can talk them into the hire car and settling at the including MOT price. The staff are trained to try and intervene in a non fault accident to cut companies such as Albany out as it saves them a lot of money. So if you ring them and explain the situation you may be able to talk them into it. The worse they can say is no

[Pet Troll]

My car was driven into whilst parked, luckily a note was left. I claimed directly with the 3rd party insurance, after getting them to increase their original offer by 100% I accepted the revised offer based on them sending my the cheque within 7 days, they then asked me for my MOT certificate which I couldn't find. I informed them that I couldn't find it and would forward it as soon as I had found it, about a week later the cheque arrived, no further mention of the mot. Later I found out my MOT had lapsed about a month previously.

[catman]

Thanks for that. I was going to advise him to go directly to the TP Insurer, until I read that his own Insurer would be more obliged to be fair. It's being made more difficult by his own Insurer trying to capitalise on the situation, rather than doing any real work.

Yes, he has read in the policy that no mot=no Insurance, but they backtracked on that when I made a call to them on his behalf. I appreciate the advice!

Tim

[dacouch]

catman said:

Thanks for that. I was going to advise him to go directly to the TP Insurer, until I read that his own Insurer would be more obliged to be fair. It's being made more difficult by his own Insurer trying to capitalise on the situation, rather than doing any real work.

Yes, he has read in the policy that no mot=no Insurance, but they backtracked on that when I made a call to them on his behalf. I appreciate the advice!

Tim

I'll do a pro's and cons

Own Insurer

Pros

He has a contract with them and they have to abide by the Ombudsman which could be handy with the lack of an MOT when it comes to valuing the car.

Cons

His excess will be deducted from his settlement, this can be claimed back from the other party if they're at fault.

Tesco will deduct the remaining premium instalments from his settlement.

He needs to replace the written off car within 28 days or they will cancel.

He will have a fault claim registered against him until he recovers his excess or his Insurers recover their outlay, this can mean if the renewal date falls before you or they make a recovery you pay a (Temporary) higher premium.

(To recover the excess you basically send a photocopy of the letter that accompanies your settlement cheque to the other Insurers asking them to repay you).

Third Parties Insurers

Pros

No Excess to pay

No deduction from settlement of remaining premium instalments

No major effect on your renewal premium.

Likely to get a hire car financed by them

Cons

They are not obliged to follow the Ombudsman so you may receive a lower settlement than from your own Insurer due to the lack of MOT.

As I mentioned before it's worth a call to the other Insurers as they're very likely to fall over themselves to provide a hire car to keep Albany out of the loop. I would broach the subject of the lack of MOT and see if they would be prepared to settle the claim on the same basis as your own Insurer would as you've done them a favour. It's well worth a try as the worst they can say is no. For a lowish value claim there's a good chance they will say yes