Hire car MOT expired then crash!
Discussion
My daughter hired a car for a 10 days on hols in devon and had an accident - and discovered the cars mot ran out the day before. She has a £1000 excess on the hire contract but is the contract valid if the car technically became illegal on the fourth day of hire?
Odd one this. No other car involved she hit a bollard hard!
Odd one this. No other car involved she hit a bollard hard!
Blimey thats an odd one.
Not having an MOT certificate, using a vehicle without there being a necessary MOT certificate, is a criminal offence contrary to section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The driver may well still be liable however, the Hire Car may be a good defence if she wishes to defend the case at court. I would guess that she has a duty of care to establish if the car i road worthy and Mot'd I known in reality 90% of drivers won't bother and would trust a hire car company.
I would suggest that the hire car company breached the contract with your daughter and are liable for damages incurred by as they failed her by not ensuring the car was MOT'd.
So, ignorance is not a defence in law sadly.
I have been issued hire cars including from big brands with hole chucks of sidewall missing from a tyre.
Not having an MOT certificate, using a vehicle without there being a necessary MOT certificate, is a criminal offence contrary to section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The driver may well still be liable however, the Hire Car may be a good defence if she wishes to defend the case at court. I would guess that she has a duty of care to establish if the car i road worthy and Mot'd I known in reality 90% of drivers won't bother and would trust a hire car company.
I would suggest that the hire car company breached the contract with your daughter and are liable for damages incurred by as they failed her by not ensuring the car was MOT'd.
So, ignorance is not a defence in law sadly.
I have been issued hire cars including from big brands with hole chucks of sidewall missing from a tyre.
They are replacing the car for her as one wheel is bent, and ‘will sort out the details when you return the car’.
As I see it there are 2,things
1. £1000 excess - is a contractual liability
2. She was driving an illegal car and would have been for 8 more days if she hadn’t hit a bollard.
Does 2. make the contract void and unenforceable.
I mean what would have happened if she had hit a pedestrian???!!
As I see it there are 2,things
1. £1000 excess - is a contractual liability
2. She was driving an illegal car and would have been for 8 more days if she hadn’t hit a bollard.
Does 2. make the contract void and unenforceable.
I mean what would have happened if she had hit a pedestrian???!!
V6 Pushfit said:
They are replacing the car for her as one wheel is bent, and ‘will sort out the details when you return the car’.
As I see it there are 2,things
1. £1000 excess - is a contractual liability
2. She was driving an illegal car and would have been for 8 more days if she hadn’t hit a bollard.
Does 2. make the contract void and unenforceable.
I mean what would have happened if she had hit a pedestrian???!!
Did the lack of mot cause the accident? As I see it there are 2,things
1. £1000 excess - is a contractual liability
2. She was driving an illegal car and would have been for 8 more days if she hadn’t hit a bollard.
Does 2. make the contract void and unenforceable.
I mean what would have happened if she had hit a pedestrian???!!
V6 Pushfit said:
They are replacing the car for her as one wheel is bent, and ‘will sort out the details when you return the car’.
As I see it there are 2,things
1. £1000 excess - is a contractual liability
2. She was driving an illegal car and would have been for 8 more days if she hadn’t hit a bollard.
Does 2. make the contract void and unenforceable.
I mean what would have happened if she had hit a pedestrian???!!
On (2) - again, no. Not much more to say than that. Now if they had hired her an unroadworthy car, with brakes that didn't work, that then became a contributory factor to the accident - she might have a case. But an expired MOT simply won't void the contract.As I see it there are 2,things
1. £1000 excess - is a contractual liability
2. She was driving an illegal car and would have been for 8 more days if she hadn’t hit a bollard.
Does 2. make the contract void and unenforceable.
I mean what would have happened if she had hit a pedestrian???!!
I'm not sure what relevance the pedestrian has. But the answer's still no.
Is there any relationship between the car's lack of MOT and the accident?
For example, the car pulled badly to one side under braking due to a sticking caliper that should fail an MOT, or had tyres worn below the legal minimum and skidded in the wet?
Because otherwise I expect they're two separate issues, and yes, she's on the hook for the excess.
For example, the car pulled badly to one side under braking due to a sticking caliper that should fail an MOT, or had tyres worn below the legal minimum and skidded in the wet?
Because otherwise I expect they're two separate issues, and yes, she's on the hook for the excess.
deckster said:
The contract isn't void. She's still liable for the excess I'm afraid.
Although I am amazed that any hire cars are old enough to need an MOT. Who did she hire it from?
My thoughts were that it is surely an implied part of the hire contract that the vehicle is insured and legal on the road for the duration of a short term hire. The lack of MOT makes the vehicle illegal. Although I am amazed that any hire cars are old enough to need an MOT. Who did she hire it from?
It was a local taxi/car hire place in Cornwall. Very ‘local’
V6 Pushfit said:
My thoughts were that it is surely an implied part of the hire contract that the vehicle is insured and legal on the road for the duration of a short term hire. The lack of MOT makes the vehicle illegal.
It was a local taxi/car hire place in Cornwall. Very ‘local’
Need a copy of the agreement OP needs to get a copy and redact the company name and his daughters info.It was a local taxi/car hire place in Cornwall. Very ‘local’
There must be obligation to provide a car that is of satisfactory quality and road legal.
Would it absolve her from the £1000, damage was done by driver unless she is saying the car was unfit to be driven and that's why she crashed.
She damaged the car through a fault with the car or her own negligence, but some liability must fall on the hire firm for providing a car without a valid MOT for the period of hire.
V6 Pushfit said:
My daughter hired a car for a 10 days on hols in devon and had an accident - and discovered the cars mot ran out the day before. She has a £1000 excess on the hire contract but is the contract valid if the car technically became illegal on the fourth day of hire?
Odd one this. No other car involved she hit a bollard hard!
Odd one this. No other car involved she hit a bollard hard!
V6 Pushfit said:
My thoughts were that it is surely an implied part of the hire contract that the vehicle is insured and legal on the road for the duration of a short term hire. The lack of MOT makes the vehicle illegal.
So basically you are trying to get out of paying the £1000 excess on this supposed loophole? If that the gist of it?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff