MoT / Insurance question

[Stu 9-5]

I have a colleague who has been involved in an accident.

He was riding his motorcycle down a busy A road and a car turned right out of a side street, colliding with him on the main carriageway.

Quite clear cut, driver looked but didn't see...



However, the situation is a little messy as the motorcyclist's MoT had expired, the bike was in a fully serviceable condition but not MoT'd. Yes I've told him it was silly to let himself get into this situation but he's had domestic issues of late and the MoT had slipped his mind.

He has a tame bike shop that would, if asked, say he was en route for a test but will this be necessary?

Would it involve a nullification of his insurance policy?

He's not too fussed if the insurance company don't pay out on the bike as it was only a £1200 winter hack. But will he be financially responsible for damages to the chavved up Puma that hit him and will he still be eligible for injuries compensation (broken foot, leg and mild concussion) considering he was definitely not at fault?

Has he been a fupid stucker?

[chris d]

Stu,

I understand Seans annoyance - but his reply seems a little harsh.

The MOT idea is outrageous! And, as Sean says, any MOT station willing to get involved should be reported to VOSA.

Re the no MOT = no Insurance. Under S148 of the Road Act 1988 some restrictions on the use of a motor vehicle by insurance companies are not enforceable by law. If the insured person is in breach of these restrictions he commits no offence and is still insured. One of those conditions is the condition of the vehicle.

[Stu 9-5]

I'm not condoning his behaviour Sean, just relaying the information I have.

He's normally quite a straight laced guy but as is the law of the sod, he makes a minor misjudgement with his diary and it goes mammaries skyward.


I'm just trying to gather some information for him in case his insurer starts becoming uncooperative.

thanks for the advice so far, it's appreciated.

edit: I've advised him against telling porkies!

>> Edited by Stu 9-5 on Monday 6th March 19:25

[gilbertd]

A mate of mine nearly found himself in the same situation under different circumstances. His van was just over 3 years old when involved in a fairly major accident that meant it was beyond economic repair. The accident wasn't his fault and the insurance company claimed the salvage and asked for his documents. He sent them the V5 and they came back and pointed out that, due to it's age, it needed an MoT. Would he send the certificate. At which point he panicked as he didn't recall getting one. Turned out that the main dealer that always did his servicing had used some initiative and put it through a test when it had gone in for service. They then put the certificate in with his service book.

In the few days before he discovered this, his insurers told him that if he had an MoT, they would pay out for the value of the van prior to the accident, if it didn't, they would pay out the value of a very bent scrap van with no MoT. In either case he was still insured and they would still pay out.

[Piglet]

I wouldn't imagine that any of this effects his ability to claim for his personal injury and uninsured losses (income etc.) from the other driver. The other driver was clearly at fault regardless of the MOT position.

Does your friend have any uninsured loss recovery insurance attached to his bike insurance policy? If so they'll be able to deal with the claim for him against the other driver's insurance company. The other guy was still to blame (*assuming that the accident wasn't caused by the unroadworthy condition of the bike - which according to your description it wasn't).

[Stu 9-5]

Sounds just like what I was expecting to hear, thanks guys.