Car Insurance/MOT thoughts

[Colette-S]

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

Suspect the insurance company referred her to a credit hire company, and that’s where a lot of the 9k comes from. She may have thought she was getting a courtesy car, but signed a credit hire agreement instead. This makes her responsible for the charges if they cannot be recovered- although whether they would enforce it is another matter.

This is speculation though as your post does not include enough detail. It may be the repair was 9k or the other party are now blaming your DIL and they are suing her.

The policy will say there should be an MOT for cover to be valid- standard term. So the insurance company can potentially escape payment (subject to all sorts of complex arguments and FOS appeal) for repairing her own car. FOS has not dealt with the situation yet where lots of people are missing their MOTs due to the extension, and inadvertent missing of the new date. It is common.

If there is credit hire, the credit hire company may be worried the other side would argue ex turpi- essentially she cannot claim from the other side (including repair and car hire if there is any) due to the fact she was driving with no MOT and thus illegally. There is conflicting authorities on that though, and it’s a complex argument again.

If the insurer does pull cover and/ or a credit hire company starts demanding money from her, she needs specialist legal advice. It really needs an insurance specialist as the average high street solicitor will maybe not understand all the nuances.

See more...

Her own insurance company are not involved so they can’t pull cover. Her vehicle was parked when hit so it would be unlikely that the other party are blaming her and suing her.
As per my previous posts, regardless of the vehicle not having MOT I think her claim for the damage/repairs would be successful as I can’t see any legal reason why it wouldn’t.
The hire/alternative vehicle charges would be a different matter (again please see my previous post for reasons)

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by Colette-S

Her own insurance company are not involved so they can’t pull cover. Her vehicle was parked when hit so it would be unlikely that the other party are blaming her and suing her.
As per my previous posts, regardless of the vehicle not having MOT I think her claim for the damage/repairs would be successful as I can’t see any legal reason why it wouldn’t.
The hire/alternative vehicle charges would be a different matter (again please see my previous post for reasons)

See more...

Thanks hadn’t read the thread and seen it had been clarified the other insurer had paid.

OP- first advice is never take advice from a holiday website and she should get legal advice.

But I’ll give some personal musings only as I find it interesting.

First, we don’t know how the DIL came to be in the hire car. Two distinct possibilities. Most likely is that she was put in by the insurers. This is normally through a third party company such as Enterprise. So next question did she sign any contractual agreement to pay with them if she had no MOT or if the insurers ultimately refused to pay? In absence of that, the car hire company cannot pursue her direct.

It may also be a courtesy car, supplied by the insurers’ panel garage, but same principle applies.

As to the repairs, it looks like the insurer has spotted the lack of MOT and some claims handler has decided this might be a case she had no claim, due to the defence of illegality, aka ex turpi. Without getting technical this is that someone cannot benefit for public policy reasons where their claim arises from an illegal act, in this case driving with no MOT contrary to S47 of the Road Traffic Act.

I think that is likely to fail (Patel v Mirza).

Therefore they have already paid it seems, so even in the unlikely event they could make this argument stick, they would have to sue her and have a cause of action. What is the cause of action? They’d struggle on mistake, and would have no chance under tort of deceit. So there is in my personal view no likely cause of action as a method to pursue recovery even in the unlikely event they could make an ex turpi argument stick.

So unless she signed an agreement saying she would pay hire in the event of no MOT, I would tell the insurers she is a paramedic and with the extensions to MOTs (if correct) like many it slipped her mind but she won’t be paying anything.


This does not constitute legal advice and is just my own musings on a forum. As I say, getting legal advice from a story given second hand on a forum without all the facts is a non starter.

Good luck.

[alisonjones]

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

Thanks hadn’t read the thread and seen it had been clarified the other insurer had paid.

OP- first advice is never take advice from a holiday website and she should get legal advice.

But I’ll give some personal musings only as I find it interesting.

First, we don’t know how the DIL came to be in the hire car. Two distinct possibilities. Most likely is that she was put in by the insurers. This is normally through a third party company such as Enterprise. So next question did she sign any contractual agreement to pay with them if she had no MOT or if the insurers ultimately refused to pay? In absence of that, the car hire company cannot pursue her direct.

It may also be a courtesy car, supplied by the insurers’ panel garage, but same principle applies.

As to the repairs, it looks like the insurer has spotted the lack of MOT and some claims handler has decided this might be a case she had no claim, due to the defence of illegality, aka ex turpi. Without getting technical this is that someone cannot benefit for public policy reasons where their claim arises from an illegal act, in this case driving with no MOT contrary to S47 of the Road Traffic Act.

I think that is likely to fail (Patel v Mirza).

Therefore they have already paid it seems, so even in the unlikely event they could make this argument stick, they would have to sue her and have a cause of action. What is the cause of action? They’d struggle on mistake, and would have no chance under tort of deceit. So there is in my personal view no likely cause of action as a method to pursue recovery even in the unlikely event they could make an ex turpi argument stick.

So unless she signed an agreement saying she would pay hire in the event of no MOT, I would tell the insurers she is a paramedic and with the extensions to MOTs (if correct) like many it slipped her mind but she won’t be paying anything.


This does not constitute legal advice and is just my own musings on a forum. As I say, getting legal advice from a story given second hand on a forum without all the facts is a non starter.

Good luck.

See more...

Hi I know that a holiday forum is not for legal advice - however, like you have given, it's a go to for any advice on the general forum, and more often than not for someone that knows nothing about something, someone on this forum will either know a little or a lot or have experienced a similar situation -
It was the car hire company that has contacted her - she has heard nothing from her own insurers and is waiting for a call back - she had just got in her car when the other car reversed into her - she hadn't moved or anything. I honestly think now, that whoever had rang her from the car hire company was trying to frighten her to be honest - because it has been a week and she hasn't heard anything from anyone else despite leaving messages.
Thank you everyone for the replies - she found them very useful and is getting legal advice just in case it goes any further.

[Stu]

Thread closed at OP's request