Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
No MOT and involved in an Accident.
1,200 views
Skip to first unread message
jazzman
May 20, 2013, 2:00:02 PM5/20/13
to
My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was travelling to fast
She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident, although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a MOT.
Checking her insurance contract, one of the clauses states that the car must have a valid MOT. So this is a devastating discovery, which may mean that she is now responsible for the cost of repairs to her car and also the other car.
Doing some googling, some knowledgeable people are stating that: a lack of MOT does NOT automatically void insurance despite what the "terms & conditions" may say.
Please could someone confirm if this is fact or fiction?
Thanks
She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident, although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a MOT.
Checking her insurance contract, one of the clauses states that the car must have a valid MOT. So this is a devastating discovery, which may mean that she is now responsible for the cost of repairs to her car and also the other car.
Doing some googling, some knowledgeable people are stating that: a lack of MOT does NOT automatically void insurance despite what the "terms & conditions" may say.
Please could someone confirm if this is fact or fiction?
Thanks
A.Lee
May 20, 2013, 3:05:01 PM5/20/13
to
jazzman <crl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is
> responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was
> travelling to fast
>
> She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident,
> although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's
> first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a
> MOT.
Get this confirmed in writing by the garage she had it booked in at.
> My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is
> responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was
> travelling to fast
>
> She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident,
> although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's
> first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a
> MOT.
this will mitigate any charges that may be brought.
> Checking her insurance contract, one of the clauses states that the car
> must have a valid MOT. So this is a devastating discovery, which may mean
> that she is now responsible for the cost of repairs to her car and also
> the other car.
> Doing some googling, some knowledgeable people are stating that: a lack of
> MOT does NOT automatically void insurance despite what the "terms &
> conditions" may say.
> Please could someone confirm if this is fact or fiction?
in a 'roadworthy' condition. e.g., is a car roadworthy with a
non-working headlight in the daytime? It wouldnt pass an MOT in that
state, but it is roadworthy in daylight.
If it does state that the car MUST have a valid MOT certifcate, then it
is likely that she is stuffed, as she has broken one of the contractual
terms, so they can refuse to pay out.
In the real world, it is unlikely for an Ins. Co. to ask to see the MOT
Certicate, though, being as this Co. has it in their terms, it may mean
they will check.
If, as you state, the other vehicle was responsible, you may not be
having to pay anything, if it is found your story was the more
beleivable.
But, more than likely the Ins. Cos. will decide that each side pay their
own costs to repair.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Alex Heney
May 20, 2013, 4:50:02 PM5/20/13
to
But if her particular insurance has that clause, then it does mean
they will be able to claim back from her any costs they are forced to
pay out by law.
i.e. those clauses cannot invalidate the third party insurance
required by law - if she is found to be the only driver at fault then
it will pay the other driver.
But may then be able to claim the costs they have paid the other
driver back form her.
And if that clause is present, it *will* invalidate her fully comp if
she has that, so she will certainly have to pay for her own repairs
unless the other driver is found to be the only on at fault.
There aren't many insurers who have that clause (yet). Not Swiftcover
by any chance?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nobody's ugly after 2 a.m.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
j...@joe.org.uk
May 20, 2013, 6:20:01 PM5/20/13
to
On Monday, 20 May 2013 19:00:02 UTC+1, jazzman wrote:
> My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was travelling to fast
I can't help you with the legalities, but for what it's worth, when my car was written off by a third party four years ago, a certificate was never asked for.
> My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was travelling to fast
Lordgnome
May 20, 2013, 6:20:01 PM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 19:00, jazzman wrote:
> She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident, although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a MOT.
>
> Checking her insurance contract, one of the clauses states that the car must have a valid MOT. So this is a devastating discovery, which may mean that she is now responsible for the cost of repairs to her car and also the other car.
>
I was in the same situation some time back - had completely forgotten
> She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident, although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a MOT.
>
> Checking her insurance contract, one of the clauses states that the car must have a valid MOT. So this is a devastating discovery, which may mean that she is now responsible for the cost of repairs to her car and also the other car.
>
about the MOT. Realising this I 'fessed up to the company and admitted
that it was brain fade on my part. They accepted it without a murmur, so
my advice would be to do the same and explain the circumstances. There
may just not be a problem.
Les.
Neil Williams
May 20, 2013, 6:35:02 PM5/20/13
to
A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
> If it does state that the car MUST have a valid MOT certifcate, then it
> is likely that she is stuffed, as she has broken one of the contractual
> terms, so they can refuse to pay out.
They cannot refuse to pay out on third party risk. They can, however, sue
> If it does state that the car MUST have a valid MOT certifcate, then it
> is likely that she is stuffed, as she has broken one of the contractual
> terms, so they can refuse to pay out.
the policyholder for what was paid out if they are in breach of contract.
They can refuse to pay out the fully comp "own damage" element.
If not at fault, though, the other insurer needs to cough up, though if the
car fails its MoT they might argue an element of contributory negligence.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Fredxx
May 20, 2013, 6:45:02 PM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 20:05, A.Lee wrote:
> jazzman <crl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is
>> responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was
>> travelling to fast
>>
>> She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident,
>> although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's
>> first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a
>> MOT.
>
> Get this confirmed in writing by the garage she had it booked in at.
> this will mitigate any charges that may be brought.
It may have the opposite effect, where she knew she was driving a
> jazzman <crl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is
>> responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was
>> travelling to fast
>>
>> She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident,
>> although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's
>> first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a
>> MOT.
>
> Get this confirmed in writing by the garage she had it booked in at.
> this will mitigate any charges that may be brought.
un-MOT'd car.
Fredxx
May 20, 2013, 6:50:02 PM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 23:35, Neil Williams wrote:
> A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>
>> If it does state that the car MUST have a valid MOT certifcate, then it
>> is likely that she is stuffed, as she has broken one of the contractual
>> terms, so they can refuse to pay out.
>
> They cannot refuse to pay out on third party risk. They can, however, sue
> the policyholder for what was paid out if they are in breach of contract.
>
> They can refuse to pay out the fully comp "own damage" element.
>
> If not at fault, though, the other insurer needs to cough up, though if the
> car fails its MoT they might argue an element of contributory negligence.
>
Only if a fault is found that may "contribute".
> A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>
>> If it does state that the car MUST have a valid MOT certifcate, then it
>> is likely that she is stuffed, as she has broken one of the contractual
>> terms, so they can refuse to pay out.
>
> They cannot refuse to pay out on third party risk. They can, however, sue
> the policyholder for what was paid out if they are in breach of contract.
>
> They can refuse to pay out the fully comp "own damage" element.
>
> If not at fault, though, the other insurer needs to cough up, though if the
> car fails its MoT they might argue an element of contributory negligence.
>
jazzman
May 21, 2013, 3:30:05 AM5/21/13
to
Forgot to mention that my daughter's car was stationary when the accident occurred. So I presume the question of road worthiness does not come into the equation?
RobertL
May 21, 2013, 4:05:01 AM5/21/13
to
Robert
Paul Rudin
May 21, 2013, 4:10:02 AM5/21/13
to
Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> writes:
> A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>
>> If it does state that the car MUST have a valid MOT certifcate, then it
>> is likely that she is stuffed, as she has broken one of the contractual
>> terms, so they can refuse to pay out.
>
> They cannot refuse to pay out on third party risk. They can, however, sue
> the policyholder for what was paid out if they are in breach of contract.
JOOI how does this work exactly? I understand that you're legally
> A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>
>> If it does state that the car MUST have a valid MOT certifcate, then it
>> is likely that she is stuffed, as she has broken one of the contractual
>> terms, so they can refuse to pay out.
>
> They cannot refuse to pay out on third party risk. They can, however, sue
> the policyholder for what was paid out if they are in breach of contract.
required to have 3rd party cover. But if you've breached an express term
do you in fact have such cover?
There must be some situations in which the insurance comes to an end and
the insurer's liability under the contract ceases.
Roland Perry
May 21, 2013, 4:25:01 AM5/21/13
to
In message <d3cb2dd6-fdf8-4616...@googlegroups.com>, at
08:30:05 on Tue, 21 May 2013, jazzman <crl...@gmail.com> remarked:
I know it opens up a traditional can of worms (regarding
responsibility), but doing an emergency stop with failed brake lights
could result in being rear-ended while briefly stationary...
--
Roland Perry
08:30:05 on Tue, 21 May 2013, jazzman <crl...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was
>>travelling to fast
>>travelling to fast
>Forgot to mention that my daughter's car was stationary when the accident occurred. So I presume the question of road worthiness does not come
>into the equation?
How long for, and in what sort of position on the road?
>into the equation?
I know it opens up a traditional can of worms (regarding
responsibility), but doing an emergency stop with failed brake lights
could result in being rear-ended while briefly stationary...
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
May 21, 2013, 4:25:08 AM5/21/13
to
jazzman wrote:
> Forgot to mention that my daughter's car was stationary when the
> accident occurred. So I presume the question of road worthiness does
> not come into the equation?
Depends a bit on how suddenly she became stationary.
> Forgot to mention that my daughter's car was stationary when the
> accident occurred. So I presume the question of road worthiness does
> not come into the equation?
Message has been deleted
The Todal
May 21, 2013, 9:40:02 AM5/21/13
to
MOT certificate which expired the day before the accident, or that it
was due for its very first MOT the day before the accident?
Maybe it makes little difference. The motor insurers are not likely to
take a point on this. They are obliged to pay out on third party claims,
but in appropriate cases might claim the money back from their
policyholder. If they are difficult, pursue the complaints procedure and
if necessary go to the insurance ombudsman.
jazzman
May 21, 2013, 5:40:01 AM5/21/13
to
So I do not know who is responsible, but that will be up to the insurance to work out.
Matt Larkin
May 21, 2013, 7:25:02 AM5/21/13
to
I might be wrong with the citation, but I think s.151(5) of the Road Traffic Act addresses the situation:
"(5)Notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel, or may have avoided or cancelled, the policy or security, he must, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the persons entitled to the benefit of the judgment—
(a)as regards liability in respect of death or bodily injury, any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability, together with any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum,
(b)as regards liability in respect of damage to property, any sum required to be paid under subsection (6) below, and
(c)any amount payable in respect of costs."
Matt
Roland Perry
May 21, 2013, 11:50:09 AM5/21/13
to
In message <e3df23a2-160d-485c...@googlegroups.com>, at
10:40:01 on Tue, 21 May 2013, jazzman <crl...@gmail.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
10:40:01 on Tue, 21 May 2013, jazzman <crl...@gmail.com> remarked:
>The car was stationary and my daughter had the door slightly open, waiting for a car to pass before she got out. The car (from what I am told,
>and there are a number of witnesses who also confirm that the car was travelling fast and too close to the parked cars.
>So I do not know who is responsible, but that will be up to the insurance to work out.
What happened then. Did her partially open door hit the passing car?
>and there are a number of witnesses who also confirm that the car was travelling fast and too close to the parked cars.
>So I do not know who is responsible, but that will be up to the insurance to work out.
--
Roland Perry
jazzman
May 21, 2013, 2:15:02 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:50:09 PM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <e3df23a2-160d-485c...@googlegroups.com>, at
>
> 10:40:01 on Tue, 21 May 2013, jazzman <> remarked:
> In message <e3df23a2-160d-485c...@googlegroups.com>, at
>
>
> >The car was stationary and my daughter had the door slightly open, waiting for a car to pass before she got out. The car (from what I am told,
>
> >and there are a number of witnesses who also confirm that the car was travelling fast and too close to the parked cars.
>
> >So I do not know who is responsible, but that will be up to the insurance to work out.
>
>
>
> What happened then. Did her partially open door hit the passing car?
>
> --
>
> Roland Perry
yes, the door was partially open, she was waiting for the other car to pass before getting out of the car.
> >The car was stationary and my daughter had the door slightly open, waiting for a car to pass before she got out. The car (from what I am told,
>
> >and there are a number of witnesses who also confirm that the car was travelling fast and too close to the parked cars.
>
> >So I do not know who is responsible, but that will be up to the insurance to work out.
>
>
>
> What happened then. Did her partially open door hit the passing car?
>
> --
>
> Roland Perry
Alex Heney
May 21, 2013, 5:15:02 PM5/21/13
to
current MOT certificate.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The cream rises to the top. So does the scum...
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
The Todal
May 22, 2013, 6:25:02 AM5/22/13
to
On 22/5/13 11:10, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:15:16 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>>
>> Even if the driver is pissed out of his brain, talking on his hand-held
>> mobile phone, peering through a cracked, dirty and rain-soaked screen
>> that the broken wash & wipe can't clear, by the light of the moon, on a
>> full set of completely bald tyres with patches of canvas showing, and
>> with the exhaust providing a smokescreen that a WW1 destroyer would be
>> proud of, the 3rd party element of the insurance cover would still be
>> valid.
>
> Although would the insurance company have a valid claim against the
> driver for their costs to the 3rd party ? I appreciate they'd probably be
> unlikely to recoup them, but in principle ...
The law is quite clear. Under the Road Traffic Act the motor insurers
are obliged to deal with any third party claim and pay out if liability
is established. The insurers are then sometimes entitled to sue their
policyholder for reimbursement - for example, if he has allowed an
unauthorised person or unlicensed person to drive the car, or if the car
is unroadworthy. And this does happen quite often, and many motorists
have a house or car that can be sold to pay the insurers their money.
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:15:16 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>>
>> Even if the driver is pissed out of his brain, talking on his hand-held
>> mobile phone, peering through a cracked, dirty and rain-soaked screen
>> that the broken wash & wipe can't clear, by the light of the moon, on a
>> full set of completely bald tyres with patches of canvas showing, and
>> with the exhaust providing a smokescreen that a WW1 destroyer would be
>> proud of, the 3rd party element of the insurance cover would still be
>> valid.
>
> Although would the insurance company have a valid claim against the
> driver for their costs to the 3rd party ? I appreciate they'd probably be
> unlikely to recoup them, but in principle ...
The law is quite clear. Under the Road Traffic Act the motor insurers
are obliged to deal with any third party claim and pay out if liability
is established. The insurers are then sometimes entitled to sue their
policyholder for reimbursement - for example, if he has allowed an
unauthorised person or unlicensed person to drive the car, or if the car
is unroadworthy. And this does happen quite often, and many motorists
have a house or car that can be sold to pay the insurers their money.
Matt Larkin
May 22, 2013, 5:00:06 AM5/22/13
to
On Monday, 20 May 2013 19:00:02 UTC+1, jazzman wrote:
I didn't have an accident during the expired period, but I recently had a 2 day period where I was unwittingly driving without an MOT on a 3 year old car.
I know a well organised and structured individual can make sure that such anniversaries are properly scheduled in their annual calendar, but most people aren't like that. A simple reminder a few weeks before the cut off date would have been very welcome.
(I know you can subscribe at a cost to an SMS service which prompts you, once you have had your first MOT, but that doesn't seem to be available to cars requiring their MOTs for the first time)
Matt
Simon Finnigan
May 22, 2013, 5:10:02 AM5/22/13
to
incident entirely unrelated to the mechanical condition of the vehicle.
Neil Williams
May 22, 2013, 8:10:02 AM5/22/13
to
Matt Larkin <matthew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know a well organised and structured individual can make sure that such
> anniversaries are properly scheduled in their annual calendar, but most
> people aren't like that. A simple reminder a few weeks before the cut
> off date would have been very welcome.
The windscreen stickers that they seem to have stopped doing do that for
> I know a well organised and structured individual can make sure that such
> anniversaries are properly scheduled in their annual calendar, but most
> people aren't like that. A simple reminder a few weeks before the cut
> off date would have been very welcome.
me.
polygonum
May 22, 2013, 8:10:09 AM5/22/13
to
possibility of direct access to the MoT records. There again, I am also
surprised that insurers don't seem to require photographs of the
vehicles they cover.
We must all have seen grossly modified vehicles (lowered suspension,
back seats replaced by speakers, illegal number plates, super-flared
wheel arches, nearly black windows, air scoops that might be
ex-aircraft, rows of additional lamps, etc.). I wonder how many of these
are insured in the form they now are? My suspicion is that many
modifications have never been declared. Whilst photographs obviously
won't identify things like chipping, they would help to demonstrate the
state of the vehicle at the time the policy was taken out. It's not as
if insurers don't demand photographs of speedo and VIN when accident
damage is being assessed.
--
Rod
R. Mark Clayton
May 22, 2013, 2:05:03 PM5/22/13
to
"jazzman" <crl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c965446-e001-4577...@googlegroups.com...
> My daughter had an accident in her car yesterday. Not sure whom is
> responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was
> travelling to fast
>
> She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident,
> although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's
> first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a
> MOT.
>
> responsible but witnesses are stating that the other car involved was
> travelling to fast
>
> She discovered today that the MOT had run out the day before the accident,
> although the car was booked in for a MOT today, because it's the car's
> first MOT there was some confusion when the car was actually due for a
> MOT.
>
> Checking her insurance contract, one of the clauses states that the car
> must have a valid MOT. So this is a devastating discovery, which may mean
> that she is now responsible for the cost of repairs to her car and also
> the other car.
>
> Doing some googling, some knowledgeable people are stating that: a lack of
> MOT does NOT automatically void insurance despite what the "terms &
> conditions" may say.
What it does not void is the insurers liability to pay out to third parties,
> must have a valid MOT. So this is a devastating discovery, which may mean
> that she is now responsible for the cost of repairs to her car and also
> the other car.
>
> Doing some googling, some knowledgeable people are stating that: a lack of
> MOT does NOT automatically void insurance despite what the "terms &
> conditions" may say.
however if the policy terms have been breached then they might try and
reclaim the cost of the payout from the insured.
>
> Please could someone confirm if this is fact or fiction?
>
PS people who pull out without looking usually say the other vehicle was
going too fast...
rogerbl...@googlemail.com
May 23, 2013, 3:10:02 PM5/23/13
to
Not that it helps her in her current situation but possibly worth noting for future years that it is possible to have the next MOT done up to a month before the expiration whilst still maintaining the current anniversary date
Ian Jackson
May 23, 2013, 4:15:02 PM5/23/13
to
In message <d60ad959-3226-4638...@googlegroups.com>,
rogerbl...@googlemail.com writes
I may be wrong, but I believe it is actually possible also to get a
vehicle MOTed in the month before its FIRST MOT due date (3 years after
registration) - and get the renewal dated as the anniversary of the
first due date. If this is so, I'd be interested in knowing how it's
done, and my wife's car will soon be needing its first MOT. Is it simply
a case of making sure that the testing station has proof of the
registration date (V5?)?
--
Ian
rogerbl...@googlemail.com writes
vehicle MOTed in the month before its FIRST MOT due date (3 years after
registration) - and get the renewal dated as the anniversary of the
first due date. If this is so, I'd be interested in knowing how it's
done, and my wife's car will soon be needing its first MOT. Is it simply
a case of making sure that the testing station has proof of the
registration date (V5?)?
--
Ian
Percy Picacity
May 23, 2013, 4:20:02 PM5/23/13
to
--
Percy Picacity
the Omrud
May 23, 2013, 5:15:01 PM5/23/13
to
MOT stations do it as a matter of course - I suspect it's just how
their computer systems are set.
--
David
the Omrud
May 23, 2013, 5:15:09 PM5/23/13
to
special action - it just works. MOTs are now entirely computerised -
you no longer get a certificate but just a receipt. Why they can't send
a reminder is a complete mystery.
--
David
Simon Finnigan
May 24, 2013, 6:00:03 AM5/24/13
to
changed before I got the vehicle but it looks and drives like a stock
vehicle). The I surname co seemed not to care that I couldn't produce a
logbook or MOT certificate for the car, nor an insurance certificate or tax
disk. But that was because they turned up while the number plate was being
changed, so the paperwork was either in the post, or related to a different
number plate. They didn't care, which begs the question - why ask for the,
in the first place.
rogerbl...@googlemail.com
May 24, 2013, 2:50:01 PM5/24/13
to
"Why they can't send a reminder is a complete mystery."
If by they, you mean VOSA, then I assume it's down to cost. Unlike car tax, where the fee is collected by DVLA, the MOT cost is invoiced by the garage. Those garages who carry out the MOTs on our three family vehicles do each send a reminder several weeks in advance of the current year's expiry date. Two of the vehicles were bought within their first three years and the respective dealers sent reminders before the first MOT was due.
One didn't and I realised five months late that it should have been MOTed.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages