No MOT-Crash-Advice
Discussion
A chap who works with my dad has had an accident that in normal circumstances would clearly be the other drivers fault, but he was aware that his MOT had expired and for some silly reason he did not get it sorted, the question that I have is , he believes that because he has informed the Police officer at the scene and he checked his car over there and then and he has not been asked to produce any more documents that this has been overlooked, I and my dad on the other hand think that he will be shafted with this by the other parties insurance company as surely this is something that gets checked initially prior to concluding any claim, he is also going to claim for whip lash etc and I would like all of your advice to clarify how you think he stands or he could be loosing a lot of money with regards to earnings etc that he will not be able to claim back if he was to loose the claim, I believe that due to his no MOT he is at fault as the car should not have been in that position and not on the road so hence this being his fault,
any input would be great.
any input would be great.
If the accident was not his fault, then he would not be considered as being 'at fault' simply because his car was not MOT'd.
Also, the absence of a valid MOT certificate will not necessarily invalidate his insurance. An insurance company may refuse to pay out for his losses if it can be proved that his vehicle was in an unroadworthy condition and/or that its condition was a contributory factor in the cause of the accident. This is not the same as invalidating the cover.
That said, a problem may yet occur if the other party's insurance company attempt to use him not having an MOT as an excuse to refuse to settle any claim against them (or offer a reduced settlement).
Bear in mind that if being without an MOT automatically invalidated your insurance, you would be committing the additional offence of driving without insurance also - big fine, big points, possible ban. As it stands, no MOT is just a small fine and no points.
Also, the absence of a valid MOT certificate will not necessarily invalidate his insurance. An insurance company may refuse to pay out for his losses if it can be proved that his vehicle was in an unroadworthy condition and/or that its condition was a contributory factor in the cause of the accident. This is not the same as invalidating the cover.
That said, a problem may yet occur if the other party's insurance company attempt to use him not having an MOT as an excuse to refuse to settle any claim against them (or offer a reduced settlement).
Bear in mind that if being without an MOT automatically invalidated your insurance, you would be committing the additional offence of driving without insurance also - big fine, big points, possible ban. As it stands, no MOT is just a small fine and no points.
Accident - not his fault?
His claim for damage to his car and any injuries will be on the others Insurance Policy.
If any claim was made by the other party on his Insurance then despite the expired MOT on his vehicle then his Company, by law (Section 148 Road Traffic Act 1988)have to pay out the Third Party risk i.e. damages in relation to the others vehicle/injuries. But because of the expired MOT they will not pay out for his damamages and may, if there is a clause relating to roadworthyness (an expired MOT does not automatically mean a vehicle is not roadworthy so they would have to prove) it could be used in a civil claim to get their money back.
It should be noted that Section 148 Road Traffic Act 1988 kills the myth that because the MOT has expired then there is no Insurance in force.
If Plod did not ask for production of MOT and made no reference to fact that he has checked the MOT Database then it looks as if he has got away with the Test Certificate offence.
If he was reported then no worries as it is a minor offence in the scale of traffic infringements.
dvd
His claim for damage to his car and any injuries will be on the others Insurance Policy.
If any claim was made by the other party on his Insurance then despite the expired MOT on his vehicle then his Company, by law (Section 148 Road Traffic Act 1988)have to pay out the Third Party risk i.e. damages in relation to the others vehicle/injuries. But because of the expired MOT they will not pay out for his damamages and may, if there is a clause relating to roadworthyness (an expired MOT does not automatically mean a vehicle is not roadworthy so they would have to prove) it could be used in a civil claim to get their money back.
It should be noted that Section 148 Road Traffic Act 1988 kills the myth that because the MOT has expired then there is no Insurance in force.
If Plod did not ask for production of MOT and made no reference to fact that he has checked the MOT Database then it looks as if he has got away with the Test Certificate offence.
If he was reported then no worries as it is a minor offence in the scale of traffic infringements.
dvd
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff