Does No MOT Invalidate insurance?

[unclebulgaria67]

Lack of MOT, just means damage to own car is not covered. Which is why it is reasonable to repay the 3K it cost to repair the car

Under Road Traffic Act law Insurance company still liable for damage to third party property and injuries. And the lack of MOT  does not provide grounds to ask your father to cover these additional claim amounts. The MOT is a legal requirement, but does not mean the car was not roadworthy. And the lack of MOT does not appear relevant to the cause of the accident.

[unclebulgaria67]

My presumption is that the Insurance company wrote the policyholder asking to be contacted

And they were aware the MOT had run out.

And the Insurers asked for the 3k based on the policy requiring vehicles to meet all legal standards required.

But as Ethel says, you could ask for proof  before paying the money to them.

[unclebulgaria67]

Personally, I think you should pay the Insurers the £2860 as full and final settlement.  The problem of going down the FOS complaints route, is that the Insurers decide to dig their heels in and want your father to be responsible for the third parties claim.  Arguably, the car should not have been on the road and the fact that the car was on road ( even though roadworthy) has led to the Insurers having to pay a large value claim. But of course it depends on what your fathers own policy stated. The FOS would want to see the actual policy to understand the exact legal position.

Insurers don't normally take people to court to claim back money they think is owed to them, but this cannot be ruled out.

So you really need to consider how much hassle you can handle.  Go down the complaints route which could take many months and without knowing what the outcome might be.  Or just pay the £2860, if this will conclude the matter.

 

[unclebulgaria67]

The OP's father could pay the £2860 and complain to the FOS,  but the FOS might conclude that the parties have agreed settlement, so no further investigation is required.  Worse possibility, is that Markerstudy, believe they have a case for asking OP's father to pay them more money that they have had to pay to third party and want to pursue this, as the full & final settlement was not really agreed, as evidenced by ongoing FOS complaint.

[unclebulgaria67]

If you want to go to the FOS and try to get a final conclusion that is OK, provided that you understand that someone from the FOS might call to try to end the complaint quickly I.e., you have settled full and final, as a consequence of breaking contract due to no MOT, the Insurers have  acted fairly etc etc etc.

If you then decided to continue the complaint after the first FOS call, you would have to think what outcome you are likely to achieve. I understand the argument about paying the money to the Insurers under duress, but at the end day,  if the policy wording says no MOT invalidates the Insurance cover, then the Insurers would be entitled to the return of the money paid out.

My gut instinct on a case like this, is admit the mistake, pay the price and don't keep digging.