MOT?

[Racing Newt]

It would seem that one insurance company is believing in it, so what happens when your car is not required to have an MOT done?



https://tinyurl.com/2925ar67

[Magic919]

If your car doesn’t require an MOT, then it’s not possible for it to have an MOT failure.

If it’s not roadworthy, you’d still have a problem.

[paul_c123]

They refused to pay out because it wasn't roadworthy.

[E-bmw]

^^^ Wot 'e (they) said.

Simple really.

Whilst not every car needs an MOT, all cars on the road need to be roadworthy.

[I am alright Jack]

paul_c123 said:

They refused to pay out because it wasn't roadworthy.

^ This.

What's more concerning from the op's link is the death of Tinkerbell.

[Decky_Q]

Surprised an oil stained shock was put down as a major fail, have had it as an advisory plenty of vehicles I've put through mot.

[KungFuPanda]

Sounds like they’ll be going after her for their outlay relating to the third party claim as well if she’s found to be at fault for the accident.

If she’s not at fault, why didn’t she go after the third party for her claim?

[carl_w]

paul_c123 said:

They refused to pay out because it wasn't roadworthy.

Right, but did the leaking damper contribute to the accident?

Seems odd that the insurers would have considered it safe if driving to an MOT station but unsafe if driving to her mum's

[Doesitdrive]

Ignoring exemption and getting an MOT seems like an even better choice now.

Hardly expensive if the car is roadworthy any way?

Exemption is just used as an excuse to run unsafe vehicles in the main.

[I am alright Jack]

^ Exemption has nothing to do with the op's story.

[sixor8]

They can't refuse to pay for the lack of an MoT, ie if it has expired. This has case law quoted on here.

But this case it had failed and not been rectified, so unroadworthy and likely contributed to the accident.

"Following our rejection of her claim and as was her right, Ms Brown referred her claim for review to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) – an independent adjudicator that settles complaints between consumers and financial companies.

'FOS has responded to this, and her five complaint points have not been upheld. FOS has agreed in our decision to reject her claim."

[Gareth79]

In her pics the reg was P11 VNK but that seems to have been taken off the vehicle so you can't see what the actual MOT result was.

There's a Porsche in her pics, P7 VNK, which I assume is hers, and the last MOT was a bit of a horror-show. It passed later on the 11th Aug:

https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?regis...



The decision isn't in the FOS online database, I *think* they are only added there when either side appeals and it's passed to a senior decision-maker. Also I assume the crash was deemed her fault, otherwise the other side would have paid out regardless of the state of her vehicle, unless the state *contributed* to the outcome of the crash, which seems unlikely.

Edited by Gareth79 on Saturday 13th June 23:05

[babelfish]

"The supercar fan, who is friends with Katie Price" - enough said

[tomsugden]

The only thing in the article that doesn't surprise me is that Admiral are involved. They were utter @rseholes to deal with when my car was stolen, and did everything they could to try and avoid paying me.

[OPUT]

sixor8 said:

They can't refuse to pay for the lack of an MoT, ie if it has expired. This has case law quoted on here.

….

IANAL, but I thought the issue was admiral put it in their standard contract. So not MOT means a breach of contract and admiral can refuse a first party claim (but not 3rd party’s).

[Sheepshanks]

OPUT said:

sixor8 said:

They can't refuse to pay for the lack of an MoT, ie if it has expired. This has case law quoted on here.

.

IANAL, but I thought the issue was admiral put it in their standard contract. So not MOT means a breach of contract and admiral can refuse a first party claim (but not 3rd party s).

There must be more to this - there's a video kicking around and the other car simply turns right in front of her. There is mention on an amber light but on the limited information available it's not obvious how the Ferrari driver would be at fault.

[OPUT]

Sheepshanks said:

OPUT said:

sixor8 said:

They can't refuse to pay for the lack of an MoT, ie if it has expired. This has case law quoted on here.

.

IANAL, but I thought the issue was admiral put it in their standard contract. So not MOT means a breach of contract and admiral can refuse a first party claim (but not 3rd party s).

There must be more to this - there's a video kicking around and the other car simply turns right in front of her. There is mention on an amber light but on the limited information available it's not obvious how the Ferrari driver would be at fault.

Ah, of course the story is Daily Mail. I should know better.

[Sheepshanks]

OPUT said:

Ah, of course the story is Daily Mail. I should know better.

To be fair, it was in other newspapers too. The video is here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/39385279/pink-ferrar...


The MOT issue isn't simply that it ran out - it had failed a few days prior so probably could be deemed to be unroadworthy.

I wonder if both cars were with the same insurer.

Edited by Sheepshanks on Monday 15th June 17:48

[paul_c123]

Sheepshanks said:

To be fair, it was in other newspapers too. The video is here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/39385279/pink-ferrar...

Shame we can't see the phase of the lights.

[Sheepshanks]

paul_c123 said:

Shame we can't see the phase of the lights.

There's talk of an amber light but if it had been clear cut you'd think there'd have been police action, especially with injuries.