MOT expired 6 days before van break in
Discussion
dibblecorse said:
How many years have you worked in motor insurance to have developed this degree of knowledge ?
If you do indeed work in motor vehicle insurance and this is your level of knowledge then please do bo speak to your L&D dept and ask them that put you on some Insurance fundamentals training, for all our sakes.
Indeed.If you do indeed work in motor vehicle insurance and this is your level of knowledge then please do bo speak to your L&D dept and ask them that put you on some Insurance fundamentals training, for all our sakes.
I think the point that a number of posters are missing is contained in the aforementioned Insurance Act;
(2) If a loss occurs, and the term has not been complied with, the insurer may not rely on the non-compliance to exclude, limit or discharge its liability under the contract for the loss if the insured satisfies subsection (3).
(3) The insured satisfies this subsection if it shows that the non-compliance with the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.
Eg. For example the breach of warranty requiring a policyholder to have a fire safety system in place would result in suspension of the insurers’ liability in respect of fire-related losses, but not in respect of flood losses.
In the OPs case, was the risk of theft altered/increased by not have a valid MOT? Clearly not.
Insurers (or indeed anybody) can put whatever they like in a contract; it doesn't mean it is valid or enforceable.
(2) If a loss occurs, and the term has not been complied with, the insurer may not rely on the non-compliance to exclude, limit or discharge its liability under the contract for the loss if the insured satisfies subsection (3).
(3) The insured satisfies this subsection if it shows that the non-compliance with the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.
Eg. For example the breach of warranty requiring a policyholder to have a fire safety system in place would result in suspension of the insurers’ liability in respect of fire-related losses, but not in respect of flood losses.
In the OPs case, was the risk of theft altered/increased by not have a valid MOT? Clearly not.
Insurers (or indeed anybody) can put whatever they like in a contract; it doesn't mean it is valid or enforceable.
NIG said:
Please note that following a review of the complaint and discussions with our underwriting department I can now advise that my enquiries into this matter are now complete.
Having viewed the conditions and exclusions of your policy I feel that these are clear and the vehicle would be expected to have a valid mot, in addition I am not aware of any grace period in order for the mot test to take place.
However having referred this matter to our underwriters and noted your comments I do feel that the lack of a current mot on the vehicle did not have any bearing on this claim and therefore having considered all the facts presented it has been agreed with the claims team that they will now deal with your claim.
Once the vehicle has been inspected and if the vehicle is a total loss the claims team will contact you regarding the next steps in order to make settlement with you.
May I take this opportunity to apologise for any issues you have experienced in this matter and I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Appreciate all the help and advice gents.Having viewed the conditions and exclusions of your policy I feel that these are clear and the vehicle would be expected to have a valid mot, in addition I am not aware of any grace period in order for the mot test to take place.
However having referred this matter to our underwriters and noted your comments I do feel that the lack of a current mot on the vehicle did not have any bearing on this claim and therefore having considered all the facts presented it has been agreed with the claims team that they will now deal with your claim.
Once the vehicle has been inspected and if the vehicle is a total loss the claims team will contact you regarding the next steps in order to make settlement with you.
May I take this opportunity to apologise for any issues you have experienced in this matter and I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
vaud said:
Excellent news.
The hand-wringers will hate this. They seem to absolutely love this sort of thing.I was amazed that the insurers even went down this route. I had 3 undeclared points on my policy which turned out to be a clerical error and when I told them about it while making a claim, they just sort of said yeah ok that's not a problem - we'll adjust the policy and the subsequent payout. I was s
tting myself as well!Goes against the common theory on here that insurers are b
ds and will weasel out of a claim for the smallest reason.ensignia said:
.....
Goes against the common theory on here that insurers are bds and will weasel out of a claim for the smallest reason.
I think if this had been Mrs Notaclue trying to make a claim they would have stuck to their guns and risked it and tried to deny it. Goes against the common theory on here that insurers are b
ds and will weasel out of a claim for the smallest reason.I’m sure as the OP did a bit of research, was advised on here by a previous poster that just because it’s in their T&C’s it doesn’t make it so and pointed out the relevant section in the insurance act, which I am sure the OP would have included in his correspondence that they knew the writing was on the wall and they weren’t going to be able to pull the wool over his eyes so to speak.
OPJust spoken with the engineer. He’s knocked £45 off for the lack of MOT which I thought was very fair. He’s given me a valuation which he described as trade of £3455. Parkers value the van retail at £4884. Closest equivalent I can find on Vantrader (same age and spec, 20k more miles) is £4689. Policy document states valuation is ‘market value’.
Worth negotiating or am I on my ninth life already?
This is the last time I buy insurance purely on price.
Worth negotiating or am I on my ninth life already?
This is the last time I buy insurance purely on price.
SS2. said:
Absolutely.
Gather some adverts of similar vehicles (as best you can), plus the prices listed on Parkers and other sites. As much as you can, then go back to them.
Very much this. The more fair, reasonable and concise evidence you can present the better search high & low for the equivilent. EBay, gumtree, auto trader etc Gather some adverts of similar vehicles (as best you can), plus the prices listed on Parkers and other sites. As much as you can, then go back to them.
scottydoesntknow said:
Just spoken with the engineer. He’s knocked £45 off for the lack of MOT which I thought was very fair. He’s given me a valuation which he described as trade of £3455. Parkers value the van retail at £4884. Closest equivalent I can find on Vantrader (same age and spec, 20k more miles) is £4689. Policy document states valuation is ‘market value’.
Worth negotiating or am I on my ninth life already?
This is the last time I buy insurance purely on price.
they've relented because they know they're taking the P and they'd have the book thrown at them.Worth negotiating or am I on my ninth life already?
This is the last time I buy insurance purely on price.
Show the engineer the prices you can find and ask him/her/they etc to point you to where you can buy the van at this retail price.
Hi.
I don't want to make a post about this, as it's probably minor. Congrats to the op though.
But I took my car in to the garage this week with an abs fault. (Citroen c4) . First day they told me it was actually working, but the sensor wasn't, and I got the car back until the next day. What would have happened if i i crashed it knowing the light was on?
It was a phone call, so I had no proof? Is it illegal to do this? The garage said it was fine. But is it?
It is fixed now - they just got the wrong part, so I drove maybe 10 miles with it on. But I knew it was on.
I also tried to brake suddenly on a quiet road to check, but I couldn't! Its harder than you think!!
I don't want to make a post about this, as it's probably minor. Congrats to the op though.
But I took my car in to the garage this week with an abs fault. (Citroen c4) . First day they told me it was actually working, but the sensor wasn't, and I got the car back until the next day. What would have happened if i i crashed it knowing the light was on?
It was a phone call, so I had no proof? Is it illegal to do this? The garage said it was fine. But is it?
It is fixed now - they just got the wrong part, so I drove maybe 10 miles with it on. But I knew it was on.
I also tried to brake suddenly on a quiet road to check, but I couldn't! Its harder than you think!!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff