No Fault Car Accident but Issue with MOT

[adcb1]

Hi-

 

On the 28th of November 2007, I, through no fault of my own, was involved in a Road Traffic Accident (RTA) in Swansea. As a result of the accident my car has been declared as a write off. The driver of the lorry which hit me assumed FULL responsibility and FULL liability. My insurance company was able to put a clam in for us and the third party agreed to pay £3,400.00 for damages, use of a rental car and transport of the car from Swansea to Dover (where the closest accredited garage is to my place) as well as other costs.

 

Having now lost my car and having a rather lucky escape from the RTA in which my Ford KA was smashed into by an articulated lorry, I now seem to find myself in further difficulties. When I bought the car on the 5th of January 2005 it was to my understanding I would have to get an MOT three years from day when I recieved the car (ie Jan 2008). I had honestly thought that the car had been registered on this date and so expected to have my first MOT in the first week of January 2008.

 

Now I have discovered that the car had actually been registered in the last week of September 2004. The garage where the car had been purchased had not informed me about this pre-registration and its implications. Now I am being asked for a valid MOT for the car and with that my insurance claim is now in jeopardy. The loss of the car is one thing but now it seems I may be left without a car, with out any compensation, facing a number of costs that I cannot afford. This is all because of a driver who drove stupidly and recklessly into my lane, at which point I could have lost my lives. The car contributes to the income of our home as I am a community support worker and need a car to get to my clients. I know that the law requires all vehicles over three years to have an MOT and if I had fully understood my obligations on the day I purchased the car, it would have had its MOT on the due date.

 

I really do not feel that I should be punished for an honest mistake. The car should have had its MOT in the September of 2007 and the RTA was on the 28th of November 2007. We were just two months over the due date and surely there must be something I can do. Our insurance company has had the car independently assessed by a car engineer. They found that although the car was a Total Loss and repairs to the body work would exceed the cost of the car’s market value, it was in fact quoted to be in good condition. With all this in mind I would kindly ask any advice you may be able to give me in this matter. I feel that there must be something I can do and so any help that anyone may be able to offer would be gratefully appreciated.

 

Thank you.

[BADGER 69]

If the worse comes to the worse and your insurance will not help you you can sue the lorry driver yourself.

 

If you find this of any help please click my scales down in the left corner.

best of luck.

[scousegeezer]

Sorry to advise you that a vehicle on a public road without an M.O.T. is an absolute offence. The attitude is that you should have read the registration document to see what exact date the MOT was due. If you take Badgers advice and try to sue the lorry driver, if he or his insurance company are aware of the lack of MOT; they will probably win the case. They will come up with something around the lack of MOT issue i.e the car should not have been on the road and if it wasnt then there would not have been a crash or there was something faulty with your car which caused it to stop/stall or something along those lines. You know what solicitors are like. My opinion - for what its worth , is that you are in schtuck.

[sang33ta]

It sounds like an honest misunderstanding but your insurance company may use it so they don't have to help you with your claim. You can tell the date of registration from the licence plate now.

 

Out of interest what is written on your licence plate 54(Sept 2004) or 55(Sept 2005)?

 

If your car was worth less than £5000 you should be able to take it through small claims court yourself if the other party refuse to pay out. If the accident wasn't caused by an un-roadworthy vehicle you should still be compensated for your loss due to the other parties mistake.

 

Dispite what some people think you are allowed to drive without an MOT if you are on your way to and from garage/MOT test center with appointment. Most people only realise they need an MOT when they need a new tax disk so I'm sure this is a common problem.

[Darkangelsdelite]

I agree that the garage should have told you that the car was registered in sept 2004 (making it a 54 plate sang33ta, the next reg "05" didn't come in until march 2005) and they must have some responsibility for the car not being MOT'd, however, i kinda have to agree with scousegeezer here in that you should have read the documentation that came with the car, including the "log book" which would confirm the date of first registration.

The onus is on you as the car owner to make sure that it is correctly insured, taxed and MOT'd, i don't think that taking the lorry driver to court is really gona help as the car not being MOT'd was nothing to do with him so i can see the case being thrown out.

Best thing to do that i can see is to just be honest with your insurer, explain to them that this was an honest mistake and hopefully they will agree to honour the claim.

 

let us know how you get on...

 

 

DA

[sang33ta]

Dark Angel I know it should be 54 I was wondering if the car had a private plate or somthing, wondering how everytime adbc1 walked up to the car they didn't know it was Sept 2004.

 

Dark Angel for all we know adbc1 was on the way to the MOT service center when hit by the truck and was entitled to be on the road.

 

The truck would still be at fault for causing the accident and the damage wehter or not there was an MOT.

 

They have admitted liability so I don't realy see what the problem is unless they were disputing it because your wheel dropped off, because it was unroadworthy, and caused the accident.

 

MOTs are electronic now, insurers will already know you don't have one, so it's ammusing they asked you to provide it.

[Darkangelsdelite]

The issue here isn't that the truck is at fault or not, liability has already been established. The issue here is that the OP was driving a car, albeit unwittingly, without an MOT which is a clear breach of the T&C's of a motor insurance policy and could result in a potential repudiation of the claim.

 

Yes i agree that we're assuming that he wasn't on his way to an MOT centre, however, being as he's already stated that he lives near Dover and the accident happened in Swansea (which unless my geography is wrong is about 270 miles) and he's already stated that he thought his MOT was due in January, i would say that its a pretty safe assumption.

 

Also just to clarify for you, "54" plates ran from sept 1st 04 to feb 28th 05 so he could have quite easily have bought a brand new car on the 5th jan 2005 and it be a 54 plate and have no idea that the car was pre-registered unless either someone told him (which they didn't) or he read the car documents (which he didn't)

 

DA

[sang33ta]

Yeah if the plate was incorrect you would have a good excuse.

 

If having a valid MOT was part of your insurances terms and conditions, it's true your insurer may refuse to help you, especialy if you caused an accident.

 

But surley as the other party caused the accident you are covered as a 3rd party on their insurance wether or not you had an MOT as your contract is not with them?

[Helford]

If my memory serves me correctly, strangely having a valid MOT is NOT a requirement of most UK motor insurance policies. However the absence of such would normally reduce the pre accident vehicle valuation.

 

H

[Darkangelsdelite]

i can only speak with experience for the companies that i work for, but as far as i am aware it is a condition of your insurance to make sure the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition (MOT) and is taxed to be driven on the road. I believe this is to do with the road traffic act stating something along the same lines.

 

DA

[sang33ta]

Its a minor offence typically half a days pay fine (around £30, theoretical max £1000) and no points on your licence (assuming the car is actually roadworthy and your tax and insurance is okay).

[adcb1]

Thank you for the response. Yes, it is '54' plate. And I was not on my way to have an MOT done as I was not aware that it was due until Jan 2008. I would like to know that if this is not resolved by the other party's insurance company, can I claim the damages against my own insurance policy?

 

Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

[scousegeezer]

Sang33ta, I thiunk you will find that no MOT is a serious offence and your licence can be endorsed. Darkangel is correct , one of the conditions of car insurance is that your vehicle has to be in a roadworthy condition. NOT JUST an MOT, we all know an MOT states that the car is roadworthy only on the date that it was issued. Alongside that runs the road traffic acts and the construction and use of motor vehicles regulations. All of which places the onus on the owner/user of a vehcile to make sure the car is roadworthy when in use i.e daily. In short I see no way around adcb1's problem. Added to that it could be and I say COULD be - that the insurance company noticed something wrong with the vehicle when their engineer inspected the vehilce for the repair report - I know adcb1 doesn't mention this , but the insurance company may not have said anything to him. But that (again) could explain why they asked him for the car's MOT, when the car was fairly new.??!!!

[scousegeezer]

Sorry evry1- Further to the above , I have been in a couple of crashes; included one when my car was written off - I have never been asked for the MOT>

[Darkangelsdelite]

Its now standard practice to ask for all docs relating to the car to be sent to the insurance company following a total loss including MOT cert, log book and sometimes even a copy of your driving licence. (I'm going through a total loss claim now and all of the above have been requested by my insurer)

I don't think there's anything 'underhanded' going on here from the insurers, they're probably just following set guidelines.

 

DA

[ab123uk]

Hi All,

 

Ok I work for one of the UK's largest underwriters on the Total Loss Teams, we would usually reduce the value of the vehicle by £100-£300, but still deal with the claim- we would attempt to remove the said policyholder from cover as soon as possible for failiure to maintain a vehicle and failiure to comply.

 

UK insurers are required to have the Vehicle Registration Documents if a Vehicle is a total loss- the vehicle is registered on MIAFTR, as a total loss Category **, an MOT search can be done online, through the vOSA website, which is why some may not be asked for this. I would say you will probs be ok!

[ab123uk]

and a driving license is requested to check endorsements- to make sure they arent insuring someone who is banned or has unacceptable convictions

[BADGER 69]

Surely there are two issues here. 1 there was an accident in which the other party was to blame and accepts the blame and therefore the injured party can claim against the other party under Common Law and 2 the injured party did not have a valid MOT. The fact that the injured party did not have a valid MOT does not ( in my opinion ) have any baring on the accident was caused by the second party.

 

It would seem to me that the question is. " will the insurers help with the claim".

 

If the car was parked on private property adjacent to a road and was struck by the said lorry the driver of the car would not have been committing an offence and the lorry driver would still be liable.

[scousegeezer]

Badger,

But the whole piont here is that he was on a road and was driving "illegally". This may not be good story to make the point but here goes. "A" is on his/her way home after a night on the pop. Its 2am. They approach a junction and the lights are on green for them. They proceed through the junction. "B" has been waiting at the lights, which are on red. They have been waiting at the lights for some thirty seconds or so. Nothing has crossed the junction in front of them, so they decide to go through the red light and straight into the path of "A"'s car. Bad accident. Who is at fault. Simple answer is "B". Who end up goung to court and who's insurance ends up foorting the bill. "A"'s insurance foots the bill and they got to court for being over the limit. Logically it doesnt seem right, but that's the law and the way it operates. Ergo - no MOT he loses out.

[patdavies]

i can only speak with experience for the companies that i work for, but as far as i am aware it is a condition of your insurance to make sure the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition (MOT) and is taxed to be driven on the road. I believe this is to do with the road traffic act stating something along the same lines.

 

DA

 

No, no, no

 

It is a condition of most motor insurance policies that the vehicle is roadworthy - this is NOT the same as having a valid MOT certificate. An MoT test looks at specific items - it is possible for a vehicle to be unroadworthy, yet still pass an MoT without problems.

 

I know of no insurance policy that requires an MoT and VED as an absolute condition, since it is perfectly lawful to drive a vehicle without either of these to/from MoT test or repair.

 

Let us also put the nonsense of the VRM to bed. For registrations in September 2004 and January 2005, the VRM would be a 54. 05 starts 1st March 2005.

 

The lack of an MoT certificate is a criminal offence and should not affect the payout from the insurance company. The vehicle was obviously roadworthy from their own inspection (condition = good).

[kwikgroup]

Hi-

 

On the 28th of November 2007, I, through no fault of my own, was involved in a Road Traffic Accident (RTA) in Swansea. As a result of the accident my car has been declared as a write off. The driver of the lorry which hit me assumed FULL responsibility and FULL liability. My insurance company was able to put a clam in for us and the third party agreed to pay £3,400.00 for damages, use of a rental car and transport of the car from Swansea to Dover (where the closest accredited garage is to my place) as well as other costs.

 

Having now lost my car and having a rather lucky escape from the RTA in which my Ford KA was smashed into by an articulated lorry, I now seem to find myself in further difficulties. When I bought the car on the 5th of January 2005 it was to my understanding I would have to get an MOT three years from day when I recieved the car (ie Jan 2008). I had honestly thought that the car had been registered on this date and so expected to have my first MOT in the first week of January 2008.

 

Now I have discovered that the car had actually been registered in the last week of September 2004. The garage where the car had been purchased had not informed me about this pre-registration and its implications. Now I am being asked for a valid MOT for the car and with that my insurance claim is now in jeopardy. The loss of the car is one thing but now it seems I may be left without a car, with out any compensation, facing a number of costs that I cannot afford. This is all because of a driver who drove stupidly and recklessly into my lane, at which point I could have lost my lives. The car contributes to the income of our home as I am a community support worker and need a car to get to my clients. I know that the law requires all vehicles over three years to have an MOT and if I had fully understood my obligations on the day I purchased the car, it would have had its MOT on the due date.

 

I really do not feel that I should be punished for an honest mistake. The car should have had its MOT in the September of 2007 and the RTA was on the 28th of November 2007. We were just two months over the due date and surely there must be something I can do. Our insurance company has had the car independently assessed by a car engineer. They found that although the car was a Total Loss and repairs to the body work would exceed the cost of the car’s market value, it was in fact quoted to be in good condition. With all this in mind I would kindly ask any advice you may be able to give me in this matter. I feel that there must be something I can do and so any help that anyone may be able to offer would be gratefully appreciated.

 

Thank you.

Hi, you dont have to have a valid MOT certificate to claim through the 3rd party insurance.. you can still claim for damages, i helped a person claim last year and didnt have a valid mot certificate and there were no problems as the accident wasnt his fault. Give me a shout if you would like me to help you.

[Isiris]

No, no, no

 

It is a condition of most motor insurance policies that the vehicle is roadworthy - this is NOT the same as having a valid MOT certificate. An MoT test looks at specific items - it is possible for a vehicle to be unroadworthy, yet still pass an MoT without problems.

 

I know of no insurance policy that requires an MoT and VED as an absolute condition, since it is perfectly lawful to drive a vehicle without either of these to/from MoT test or repair.

 

Let us also put the nonsense of the VRM to bed. For registrations in September 2004 and January 2005, the VRM would be a 54. 05 starts 1st March 2005.

 

The lack of an MoT certificate is a criminal offence and should not affect the payout from the insurance company. The vehicle was obviously roadworthy from their own inspection (condition = good).

 

OP lives in Dover, accident in Swansea. Doubt even I would try to claim I was on my way to the Testing Centre. Also, the appointment has to be pre booked so would need a statement from the TC to confirm appointment

[letshelp]

sorry, I know this post has had no replies for a long time but have just found this post. Scousegeezer couldnt let your posts go unchallenged. 1st Having no MOT is NOT points on your licence, it is a fine only. Also having not MOT does not invalidate any insurance claim you may make, the insurance have tried and failed to have cases dismissed by claiming the other vehicle should not be on the road for numerous reasons, i.e. no insurance etc. They have never won.

In the scenario you describe were the drunk driver is hit by the driver who fails to conform to the traffic lights, the drunk would be prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol, he would still be able to claim for damage to his vehcle and for any injuries of the person who drove through the red light.