Insurance cancelled due to not getting new MOT
Discussion
Sorry that it's another insurance cancellation thread!
But a friend has managed to get his motorbike insurance cancelled. He made a claim as it had been quite badly vandalised. It was taken away by the insurance company's assessor and returned with far more damage than it had when taken away. Maybe badly handled as they expected it to be written off.
However he decided he would rather take the payout and get the bike repaired at a local garage. It was delivered back near the end of August (I've forgotten exact date) and on 28/08/2018 he received a document from the insurer saying the policy would be cancelled if the bike wasn't made roadworthy within 30 days.
Today the policy has been cancelled. He says that he was chasing up the assessor to try to get the new damage sorted and hence hasn't been using it, if that's relevant.
Does anyone have any ideas or will he just have to suck it up? I seem to remember reading that insurers couldn't demand fresh MOTs (the bike is under two years old so has never had an MOT), but I don't know how true that is or where to find the information.
This isn't me, I've never had a motorbike in my life. I don't think I've ever ridden one
But a friend has managed to get his motorbike insurance cancelled. He made a claim as it had been quite badly vandalised. It was taken away by the insurance company's assessor and returned with far more damage than it had when taken away. Maybe badly handled as they expected it to be written off.
However he decided he would rather take the payout and get the bike repaired at a local garage. It was delivered back near the end of August (I've forgotten exact date) and on 28/08/2018 he received a document from the insurer saying the policy would be cancelled if the bike wasn't made roadworthy within 30 days.
Today the policy has been cancelled. He says that he was chasing up the assessor to try to get the new damage sorted and hence hasn't been using it, if that's relevant.
Does anyone have any ideas or will he just have to suck it up? I seem to remember reading that insurers couldn't demand fresh MOTs (the bike is under two years old so has never had an MOT), but I don't know how true that is or where to find the information.
This isn't me, I've never had a motorbike in my life. I don't think I've ever ridden one
This may be of assistance - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Seems a bit rich the insurer cancelling the policy if its appointed assessor is the cause of the delay.
With a cancelled policy on his record which he will have to declare going forward your friend is in a bad place.
He needs to go through the insurer's complaints process and, if necessary, escalate it to the FOS.
Seems a bit rich the insurer cancelling the policy if its appointed assessor is the cause of the delay.
With a cancelled policy on his record which he will have to declare going forward your friend is in a bad place.
He needs to go through the insurer's complaints process and, if necessary, escalate it to the FOS.
That’s why I’m concerned. The guy on the phone from his insurance company even told him it wouldn’t matter, as it has been cancelled rather than voided!
Ultimately I see it this way; he had the option to repair it (irrespective of any new damage) and get it on the road with a new MOT. He also had the option to cancel the policy if that was impossible but he instead buried his head in the sand. So in those terms I have no sympathy.
However, the bike wasn’t used once after being dropped off (it won’t start!) and has been (I believe) in his garage. He has simply been driving his car instead. So it doesn’t seem like it can have been an issue - you don’t get it cancelled because you SORN your car and let the MOT lapse, do you? Or because you leave it on the drive if it breaks down?
So in that sense I have sympathy
Ultimately I see it this way; he had the option to repair it (irrespective of any new damage) and get it on the road with a new MOT. He also had the option to cancel the policy if that was impossible but he instead buried his head in the sand. So in those terms I have no sympathy.
However, the bike wasn’t used once after being dropped off (it won’t start!) and has been (I believe) in his garage. He has simply been driving his car instead. So it doesn’t seem like it can have been an issue - you don’t get it cancelled because you SORN your car and let the MOT lapse, do you? Or because you leave it on the drive if it breaks down?
So in that sense I have sympathy
Just to clarify:
I misunderstood something initially. It turns out the salvage company (Copart) collected the bike, damaged it and delivered it back and he didn't get it fixed and just left it locked up because he has been pursuing them. He didn't want to have anyone tamper with it and then find that Copart used it as an excuse that someone else must have caused the damage.
He has been calling Copart daily for a month and has been continually fobbed off.
He should have cancelled the policy or tried to speak to the insurer about this before the deadline, but I can definitely feel some sympathy now I understand it. Bike can't be started or ridden as the steering lock is locked on and can't be disengaged
I misunderstood something initially. It turns out the salvage company (Copart) collected the bike, damaged it and delivered it back and he didn't get it fixed and just left it locked up because he has been pursuing them. He didn't want to have anyone tamper with it and then find that Copart used it as an excuse that someone else must have caused the damage.
He has been calling Copart daily for a month and has been continually fobbed off.
He should have cancelled the policy or tried to speak to the insurer about this before the deadline, but I can definitely feel some sympathy now I understand it. Bike can't be started or ridden as the steering lock is locked on and can't be disengaged
Jimmy Recard said:
That’s why I’m concerned. The guy on the phone from his insurance company even told him it wouldn’t matter, as it has been cancelled rather than voided!
Wouldn't matter? In what way? That seems to me to be a clear basis for a complaint. Jimmy Recard said:
Just to clarify:
I misunderstood something initially. It turns out the salvage company (Copart) collected the bike, damaged it and delivered it back and he didn't get it fixed and just left it locked up because he has been pursuing them. He didn't want to have anyone tamper with it and then find that Copart used it as an excuse that someone else must have caused the damage.
He has been calling Copart daily for a month and has been continually fobbed off.
He should have cancelled the policy or tried to speak to the insurer about this before the deadline, but I can definitely feel some sympathy now I understand it. Bike can't be started or ridden as the steering lock is locked on and can't be disengaged
If your friend intended to buy it back the salvage value figure would be a matter of negotiation between him and his insurer, not Copart. I misunderstood something initially. It turns out the salvage company (Copart) collected the bike, damaged it and delivered it back and he didn't get it fixed and just left it locked up because he has been pursuing them. He didn't want to have anyone tamper with it and then find that Copart used it as an excuse that someone else must have caused the damage.
He has been calling Copart daily for a month and has been continually fobbed off.
He should have cancelled the policy or tried to speak to the insurer about this before the deadline, but I can definitely feel some sympathy now I understand it. Bike can't be started or ridden as the steering lock is locked on and can't be disengaged
IoW he was talking to the wrong party and thus ran out of time.
Jimmy Recard said:
It was taken away by the insurance company's assessor
Unfortunately he probably didn't realise that this was where he got it wrong.It's a long time ago now but I had a car which I knew would be easily repairable (panel damage only) but due to the cost v value aspect would be written off.
I wanted to keep it (and negotiate the salvage figure) so it was recovered back to my house and I told the insurer that's where it would be available for the assessor to inspect.
There was no way it was going to leave my possession until a settlement figure was agreed. Once a salvage company gets hold of a car it's in the lap of the gods.
You have no control over the situation whatsoever.
Jimmy Recard said:
the insurance company ... expected it to be written off.
However he decided he would rather take the payout
I think this is the key here...However he decided he would rather take the payout
They're basically saying "Look, we've paid you out in lieu of a write-off. If you want the policy to continue (in other words, have the payout regarded as a non-write-off), then get it back on the road sharpish. If you don't want the policy to continue, because the bike isn't coming back on the road, then the policy is ending, same as we'd paid out a total loss."
The MOT is just being taken as the proof that it's back on the road.
I agree with everything said here, and this is pretty much what I’ve told him.
The insurance company has been very helpful now that he has explained the situation. I hope to update this thread with something concrete on that later.
Copart has accepted fault for one small piece of the damage, but that’s not the priority now. It’s looking like the insurance company will reinstate the policy and that’s the crucial thing. Claiming from Copart can come later.
I think that crucially he should have taken it up with the insurance company immediately and kept that conversation open rather than chasing Copart. He also needs to read his correspondence better
It looks like his inexperience with this is what scuppered him, but the helpful insurance company may well be his salvation. He’s prepared to take a bit of a hit financially as he understands that that’s only realistic
The insurance company has been very helpful now that he has explained the situation. I hope to update this thread with something concrete on that later.
Copart has accepted fault for one small piece of the damage, but that’s not the priority now. It’s looking like the insurance company will reinstate the policy and that’s the crucial thing. Claiming from Copart can come later.
I think that crucially he should have taken it up with the insurance company immediately and kept that conversation open rather than chasing Copart. He also needs to read his correspondence better
It looks like his inexperience with this is what scuppered him, but the helpful insurance company may well be his salvation. He’s prepared to take a bit of a hit financially as he understands that that’s only realistic
Red Devil said:
House!
If the vehicle is less than 3 years old the MOT is not a legal requirement.
In this case it will be part of the insurer's T&Cs for providing cover.
That’s it, yeah. I think his mistake was that chasing Copart to sort out what they cocked up instead of informing the insurance company meant that they thought he had just gone to ground.If the vehicle is less than 3 years old the MOT is not a legal requirement.
In this case it will be part of the insurer's T&Cs for providing cover.
His priority now is to get the MOT, send proof to the insurance company and then chase Copart separately. He’s just waiting to hear for confirmation that the policy will be opened again
Update!
The insurance company has agreed to reinstate the policy but still wants to see a fresh MOT soon. As this is a much better outcome than cancelled insurance, he's going to jump through whatever hoops they ask
Thanks to everyone who took the time to read this thread, and even more thanks to those who replied and offered helpful suggestions. It's a load off my mind and also off his. Even if he has to suck up a bill to repair it, it's better than a cancelled policy
I think they are also asking for some kind of engineer's report - is this an engineer who is accredited by the insurance industry? I assume it's not any old mechanic or Jim down the pub who is a satellite dish "engineer"
The insurance company has agreed to reinstate the policy but still wants to see a fresh MOT soon. As this is a much better outcome than cancelled insurance, he's going to jump through whatever hoops they ask
Thanks to everyone who took the time to read this thread, and even more thanks to those who replied and offered helpful suggestions. It's a load off my mind and also off his. Even if he has to suck up a bill to repair it, it's better than a cancelled policy
I think they are also asking for some kind of engineer's report - is this an engineer who is accredited by the insurance industry? I assume it's not any old mechanic or Jim down the pub who is a satellite dish "engineer"
Jimmy Recard said:
I think they are also asking for some kind of engineer's report - is this an engineer who is accredited by the insurance industry? I assume it's not any old mechanic or Jim down the pub who is a satellite dish "engineer"
You assume correctly. For example. Other flavours are available: http://www.iaea-online.org/find-an-engineer - Red Devil said:
You assume correctly. For example. Other flavours are available: http://www.iaea-online.org/find-an-engineer - I’ve passed that onNeither of us are familiar with this very much so that’s really helpful. When my car was written off, I just had to do an MOT and it passed with no advisories so it was very little hassle and nothing I wasn’t used to already
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff