Car Insurance/MOT thoughts

[Colette-S]

Originally Posted by teamsingo134

If P's car wasn't insured, taxed had half the doors falling off is of no relevance to the 3rd party insurer who is responsible for settlement.

Thier driver damaged P's car, so they are responsible. End of story.

If she were claiming in her own policy then the insurer could repudiate the claim if there is a cause in the wording that they restrict cover if no MOT in force. A third party insurer can't do this.

See more...

I agree with regards to the damage to her vehicle but the hire charges could be another matter

[tspill]

Originally Posted by teamsingo134

If P's car wasn't insured, taxed had half the doors falling off is of no relevance to the 3rd party insurer who is responsible for settlement.

Thier driver damaged P's car, so they are responsible. End of story.

If she were claiming in her own policy then the insurer could repudiate the claim if there is a cause in the wording that they restrict cover if no MOT in force. A third party insurer can't do this.

See more...

Might there be an issue that the car was in a public place without insurance/mot (is that not an offence?)?
Also, third party claims are normally made through your own insurance and then they work out fault and sort who pays between themselves? How would this work if one party has no insurance compant>

[Sew109]

When I was in chambers we had a case that was similar the insurance company stated that our client was not insured because the car had no valid MOT, the policy wording was something along the lines of “your car needs to be roadworthy” (forgive me this was in 1996 so can’t remember exactly) in the end we settled and the insurance company paid out and agreed that an MOT was not needed to prove your car was roadworthy. You need to check the wording and I would get legal advice.

[captain-codeye]

Is the case by any chance that both cars are covered by the same insurance provider? Are they trying to get out of it without loss?

[400ixl]

Originally Posted by tspill

Might there be an issue that the car was in a public place without insurance/mot (is that not an offence?)?
Also, third party claims are normally made through your own insurance and then they work out fault and sort who pays between themselves? How would this work if one party has no insurance compant>

See more...

This offence would be with law and not with the 3rd party insurance.

I wouldn't involve my own insurance if the 3rd party is at fault. I would deal directly with their insurer. Your insurer in this instance would just be a broker in the procedure taking things out of your control. You don't need to involve them, hence why the position with them is not relevant.

As for both using the same insurer, it could be the case, but they should be working independently on each client's behalf. Not unheard of for this not to be the case though.

[Colette-S]

Like I said earlier in the thread, they would have to pay for the damage to the vehicle. The other party damaged the property of the OP’s daughter in law. I can’t see them being able to escape this.
The grey area would be the car hire on the basis of my previous points

[Stitchesmumanddad]

Originally Posted by 123

The 9K isn't for the scuff though, a very small amount will be for that.

The majority will be the out of court settlement with the other insurers for a fraudulent insurance claim, which both the OP daughter and her insurer are on the hook for.

On top of the insurer fees it is also a criminal act.

A fine of up to £1000 (£2,500 plus points if the car would have failed the MOT) for driving without an MOT.

Then there is the case of the driving without insurance (as not having an MOT invalidated her policy) that is minimum £300 fine plus 6 penalty points, unless the court decide to make an example when it can be an unlimited fine and up to 8 points and imprisonment.

Once this passes their is the small issue of insuring another car, most insurers won;t touch people with a "driving without insurance" or "insurance cancelled" marker on their file - so the few that will insure her will charge a fortune


Oh and if she is the named driver on another policy right now, as she has been told by her insurer that she was driving without insurance she has to let the insurer of the car she is named on know too, otherwise that insurance is now also invalid



An awful mess for a small oversight.

Hopefully the insurers don't involve the legal system

See more...

Absolute and utter scaremongering drivel !

[tracy99]

Originally Posted by ROBBOTOO

I’d assume the other party’s insurer would just reject the claim once it came out the other car had no MOT. Although to be fair their insured was at fault.

If it’s just a damaged bumper replacement and a week’s car hire and no injuries and not involving any court costs, it surely shouldn’t be anywhere near £9,000.

This won’t help in this case sadly, but you can get a free reminder for an MOT.

gov.uk/mot-reminder

See more...

Thanks for this.
I have signed up to it and now know my first one is due in Oct.
A great reminder tool.
Tracy x

[colin39]

Originally Posted by 123

The 9K isn't for the scuff though, a very small amount will be for that.

The majority will be the out of court settlement with the other insurers for a fraudulent insurance claim, which both the OP daughter and her insurer are on the hook for.

On top of the insurer fees it is also a criminal act.

A fine of up to £1000 (£2,500 plus points if the car would have failed the MOT) for driving without an MOT.

Then there is the case of the driving without insurance (as not having an MOT invalidated her policy) that is minimum £300 fine plus 6 penalty points, unless the court decide to make an example when it can be an unlimited fine and up to 8 points and imprisonment.

Once this passes their is the small issue of insuring another car, most insurers won;t touch people with a "driving without insurance" or "insurance cancelled" marker on their file - so the few that will insure her will charge a fortune


Oh and if she is the named driver on another policy right now, as she has been told by her insurer that she was driving without insurance she has to let the insurer of the car she is named on know too, otherwise that insurance is now also invalid



An awful mess for a small oversight.

Hopefully the insurers don't involve the legal system

See more...

Wrong, its a civil offence not a driving offence. As quoted off interweb:-

The penalty for driving without an MOT is not generally too severe if dealt with swiftly. No points are issued on a drivers licence although a fine is imposed by court of up to a maximum of £1000. A fixed penalty notice is usually the method dealt with by police which costs the driver £100.

Sorry.

Mot extention rule stated on dvsa

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by alisonjones

Hoping someone can give me a little advice or thoughts or this:
Our future daughter in law. (I'll refer to her as P)was in Dunelm before xmas and a member of staff there reversed into her car. P said as there wasn't much damage to forget it however, the staff member insisted that it went through insurance so all was exchanged. P had to have a hire car for about a week whilst her car was getting repaired - which was basically a small scuff on the bumper. This happened 18th Dec then on Jan 4th P noticed that she hadn't got MOT on her car since November - which she corrected straight away that day. To be fair she has had a lot on her mind - she's a Paramedic and she covers a lot of extra shifts, plus a load of personal things which were going on before xmas which were taking her mind time up. The insurance contacted her today to say she wasn't insured at the time of bump as she had No MOT - so could end up paying approx 9 grand plus fees - has anyone been in this situation - if so what happened - she knows she should have had MOT but she forgot - I feel so sorry for her. Any advice?

See more...

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.