Non-Fault Accident, Lapsed MOT
Discussion
Hi all, I had a call from a Relative earlier tonight. They had a non-fault accident, with witnesses and an admission of liability from the third party.
When they finally got home, they discovered that their MOT had lapsed. Am I right in thinking that they will still get paid out?
The car is in top condition and I'm confident that it would have passed its MOT without any problem. Do they inform the Insurer, or will they know anyway?
Can I only have qualified answers and not just opinions please! Thanks in advance.
Tim
When they finally got home, they discovered that their MOT had lapsed. Am I right in thinking that they will still get paid out?
The car is in top condition and I'm confident that it would have passed its MOT without any problem. Do they inform the Insurer, or will they know anyway?
Can I only have qualified answers and not just opinions please! Thanks in advance.
Tim
If the car is a total loss they'll be able to find out when they request the document reference number from the V5C or ask for the MOT details.
The third party insurer or your friends insurer can state the value of the car is less due to a lack of MOT, however push hard enough and you'll get book for it.
The third party insurer or your friends insurer can state the value of the car is less due to a lack of MOT, however push hard enough and you'll get book for it.
SV8Predator said:
What does your "relative's" insurance terms & conditions say? This may be the path to the truth (and not just opinions).
I knew there would be one reply with "relative." I'm 59, not 12. If it was me, I would have said so.As the claim will be against the third party, will my "relatives" t&cs be important? I've read elsewhere that this clause isn't enforceable.
Tim
dacouch said:
It makes no difference what the relative's insurance terms and conditions say about the MOT, the Insurer has no choice.
The terms are the contract so whatever they say is what the insurer is legally obliged to provide unless the terms contradict uk law. If the terms of the contract say they are not obliged to pay out in the event of no mot then they don't have to pay out.They will have an obligation to pay any third party damages, but. OP needs to check terms to see if they have to pay out in the circumstances described.
It makes no difference what the insurance documents state regards an MOT unless it was a potential MOT fail and contributory factor to the accident.
My insurance tried this with me when my car was fire damaged and out of MOT. Quick threat of the insurance Ombudsman soon had them changing their tune.
My insurance tried this with me when my car was fire damaged and out of MOT. Quick threat of the insurance Ombudsman soon had them changing their tune.
grayze said:
The terms are the contract so whatever they say is what the insurer is legally obliged to provide unless the terms contradict uk law. If the terms of the contract say they are not obliged to pay out in the event of no mot then they don't have to pay out.
They will have an obligation to pay any third party damages, but. OP needs to check terms to see if they have to pay out in the circumstances described.
In normal circumstances you may be right, however Insurers are subject to abiding by ICOBS and also the Ombdudsman, both over ride what an Insurer writes in their Policy.They will have an obligation to pay any third party damages, but. OP needs to check terms to see if they have to pay out in the circumstances described.
ICOBS contains a requirement that an Insurer cannot decline a claim (From their own client) for a warranty in the policy that has no bearing to the claim. eg the customer has a flood claim but the policy required them to have their window locks applied or similar to this case the car not having an MOT but the car was stolen.
The Ombudsman requires that the policy requires a wording requiring the car to be "roadworthy" and in addition to this that the accident was "most likely caused or significantly contributed" due to the car being "Unroadworthy"
The Ombudsman does not require the car to have an MOT, in fact they will assess whether they feel the car would have passed an MOT and if so there would be no deduction from the value of a write off settlement if it would have failed they are likely to sanction a deduction of upto 10%.
It's worth noting that many Insurers state in their Policies that the car needs an MOT, this is entirely over ruled by the above so the Insurers using this wording is entirely wrong especially as many of their staff have the same knowledge as you and will try and deny a claim due to a lack of an MOT
grayze said:
The terms are the contract so whatever they say is what the insurer is legally obliged to provide unless the terms contradict uk law. If the terms of the contract say they are not obliged to pay out in the event of no mot then they don't have to pay out.
They will have an obligation to pay any third party damages, but. OP needs to check terms to see if they have to pay out in the circumstances described.
I just wish people would stop promoting this pub-lore of No MOT = No insurance.They will have an obligation to pay any third party damages, but. OP needs to check terms to see if they have to pay out in the circumstances described.
dacouch is correct and I know he is because he works for an Insurer and helps on loads of Insurance threads on MSE.
An Insurer (and it's normally the nasty bottom feeding ones that you shouldn't really insure with) can say whatever they want in the contract about an MOT (as long as the vehicle is roadworthy or even if not the non-roadworthiness has no bearing on the accident claim) but will be overridden by the Ombudsman. In most instance these types of Insurers will decline a claim and most people will walk away without complaint and their wallets burnt because they don't know they can challenge the Insurance Company.
Many thanks for your helpful replies. I've suggested getting the car mot'd to comply with the law and also to prevent any possible delay regarding roadworthiness.
His Insurer does have the clause re no mot = no Insurance, so would it be better to keep them out of the equation by going directly to the third party Insurer?
I can see it becoming complicated if they wrote his car off and then tried not to pay out.
As I said in my first post, the car is in Excellent condition all round so I have no worries re: roadworthiness.
Thanks
Tim
His Insurer does have the clause re no mot = no Insurance, so would it be better to keep them out of the equation by going directly to the third party Insurer?
I can see it becoming complicated if they wrote his car off and then tried not to pay out.
As I said in my first post, the car is in Excellent condition all round so I have no worries re: roadworthiness.
Thanks
Tim
Insurers have to sign up to an Ombudsman/scheme in most EU countries. When they sign up they have to agree to abide by any decisions and financial settlements.
There are countless Ombudsmans decisions on No MOT - No Insurance.
It's all about being fair. An Insurer is being unfair in avoiding a payout where someones vehicle was 100% roadworthy and had no MOT. Different if the vehicle had 4 bald tyres and oversteered in the wet into a bunch of parked cars. Also if the roadworthiness had no bearing on the claim - a theft or vandalism claim for example. And there would be conflicting terms if you state No Insurance = No MOT and you can legally drive an unMOTed car to/from a prebooked test. Would you have cover?
There are countless Ombudsmans decisions on No MOT - No Insurance.
It's all about being fair. An Insurer is being unfair in avoiding a payout where someones vehicle was 100% roadworthy and had no MOT. Different if the vehicle had 4 bald tyres and oversteered in the wet into a bunch of parked cars. Also if the roadworthiness had no bearing on the claim - a theft or vandalism claim for example. And there would be conflicting terms if you state No Insurance = No MOT and you can legally drive an unMOTed car to/from a prebooked test. Would you have cover?
swisstoni said:
Having recently had a fairly traumatic introduction to the power of a contract in English Law I'd like to understand how the Ombudsman can overrule the contract.
May be a numpty question, but I'm just curious.
The situation is rarely straightforward but you can normally start with dismissing the idea that no MOT automatically invalidates your insurance. Roadworthiness is key and clearly you could have a wreck with an MOT that is unroadworthy and a car with no MOT in perfect condition. Existence of an MOT may or may not be helpful to different parties. Things get more complicated when the insurance policy explicitly states that the insured vehicle must have a valid MOT but even that may not give an insurer the perfect excuse to reject the claim. As with many things legal, it will come down to what's reasonable.May be a numpty question, but I'm just curious.
So take a case where the policy states that the vehicle must have a current MOT but at the time of the claim it's discovered that the MOT expired two days earlier. Independent inspections prove that the car was in perfect mechanical condition at the time of the accident and that the owner's garage had cancelled an MOT appointment at short notice. How do you think the Ombudsman would feel about the degree of reasonableness being shown if the insurer tried to refuse the claim?
singlecoil said:
Doesn't really matter what the OP's relative's insurance contract says because it's the other guy's insurance company that will be paying out, and the OP's relative doesn't have a contract with them.
That's precisely what I thought, thanks. As he's fully comp, I thought that his own Insurer could stall the claim, as they would normally pay for the write-off/repair and then seek to claim it back from the third party insurer.Thanks
Tim
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff