My car was stolen off my drive by joy riders and was recovered by the police, they took it away as evidence and for finger printing - i haven't seen my car but from what they have said it sounds like it may be a "write off" as it was involved in an accident and they continued driving it when the front wheel tyre came off... anyway cutting a long story short, i have been in contract with my insurers and they asked if i had an up to date MOT certificate, at the time i thought it was still valid, having now had a look at it, it is a 6 weeks out of date!! I haven't come clean yet with my insurers and don't know what to do ... i've read other comments on this forum and it looks like the only topic spoken about are owners who have been involved in an accident with there cars - not any stolen off their driveway.... NB i am a new user of this forum so apols if i'm wrong!
|
Hi Janey, welcome to the Backroom.
I've moved your question to a thread of its own as it is serious enough to warrant its own space, rather than getting lost in the 100+ replies to the thread you attached it to.
Thanks for using the forum search though, not everyone has got the hang of that!
I'm sure there will be any number of responses along any minute now.
No Dosh
mailto:Alan_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Would it have passed an MOT if you had taken it for testing ?
Was there anything wrong with the vehicle making it unroadworthy as far as you are aware ?
Who is your Motor Insurance with ? (Ins. Co. not Broker)
|
As far as i'm aware YES, i have it serviced every six months or so... i normally service it before i have it MOT'd so it passes through with no probs. Its an R reg Fiesta Ghia (was my pride and joy - only gave it a wash and polish the weekend) does prob only 7k miles a year - proved by there only being 36K on the clock. Broker is Churchill.
|
Also, not sure if it makes a difference - i have full protected comprehensive insurance and have full no claims (12 years).
|
|
|
Most insurance policies simply require that your vehicle is roadworthy. Whilst an MOT is taken as reasonable proof of that, its not the only way. Especially since a vehicle with an MOT is not neccessarily roadworthy.
If it were an accident, they would also take into account whether or not the condition of the vehicle affected either the likelihood or severity of the incident.
You do need to check *your* policy document to check as to whether or not its says an MOT must be current or whether the vehicle must be roadworthy. Given that they specifically asked, you do need to know.
Even if you policy says that you must have an MOT, all is not lost. It is not particularly relevant to the incident having occurred, and therefore there is a limtied amount they *ought* to take it into account - although if they decide to be difficult you may have to fight.
A lack of MOT could affect the value they are prepared to offer you for the vehicle. You may be able to mitigate this if you have a garage who is always responsible for the vehicle and is prepared to make some written statements about is condition and liklihood of passing an MOT.
At the end of the day you have no choice but to tell them, so you may as well get it over with.
From here I would recommend that you tell them honestly something along the lines of;
1) MOT 6 weeks out of date
2) Last serviced nn/nn/nn
3) Last roadworthy check nn/nn/nn
4) Attached statement of condition from garage familiar with your car.
See what you get back and then lets go from there.
You do need to be slightly prepared for the worst - the worst case being that they invalidate your insurance; you get no pay out for the vehicle; recovery, storage and disposal costs are yours to pay and your insurance record takes a nasty hit.
I don't think it is likely, but it could happen. This is hardly an unknown scenario and typically they are pretty reasonable about dealing with it. You do need to learn a lesson from it, though.
Send the letter, something like as above, and then lets deal with their reply when you get it. Do it soon though, don't make them chase you for an answer.
|
Many many thanks for your advice, I'll give it a go!
|
Churchill is now part of Direct Line (and hence the Royal bank of Scotland group) in case you need to escalate at any stage if you are not happy with the outcome. Dont jump the gun tho, I am sure it can be sorted out at the Churchill business group stage. As Mark says the MOT was not material to the cause or effect of the loss.
|
So long as the car was not "Laid Up" ie declared by sorn not to be on the road then the above is true.
I had laid my Motorbike Up (to overhaul and clean up for a few months) so declared it by sorn as off road and when insurance came to renewal and informed them that it had been off the road for an overhaul and that it was not taxed they informed me that the insurance would only cover it for scrap value until it was Mot'd (proven roadworthy).
|
|
|
I'm back again....
This has been delayed somewhat as the guy who services and MOTs my vehicle (through my father) was away on holiday for a couple of weeks. Anyway he is unable to give me a statement as suggested - as he services my car as a side line and not actually through the garage where he works. My car was MOT'd at the garage though but only records they have are that MOT is out of date and not of any servicing history.
Anyway, I have told CSG and NIG I can't produce about my MOT and they have come back to me and said they will pay out but not the full valuation made(£3k) of my car and they will deduct 15% (about £450), It seems to make no difference that the car was stolen off my drive.... but... i suppose some pay is better than no pay! If you think i can argue my case then let me know.... but i think i'll have to be happy with what i have been offered?
|
|
As you haven't needed to pay for the MOT or anywork that might have been required the amount you're out of pocket would be less than the £450 being deducted. If it was me I'ld be inclined to be happy with the offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't comment on how important a current MoT is to your insurer, but in my very limited experience the claim assessor will take a good look at the tread depth on the tyres in case the car's braking ability was insufficient. That is a bit of the MoT which is quite relevant. At 36K the tyres may have been getting low ??
|
|
I think the £450 is not the main issue - the real question is whether the £3k initial offer is a fair replacement estimate ?
|
MrWibble is correct.
Knocking off 15% is not unreasonable for not having an MOT. It may not have cost you much less than that anyway.
But were you happy with the original offer of £3k ? If that was a reasonable offer, then accept it. If you feel that it was low, then that is the point you should argue.
Look up similar cars for sale and see if they are substantially different in price - and be realistic about what you would have got for yours remembering any dings, problems, etc.
But keep away from arguing the 15%, that's not somewhere you really want to go.
Oh, and I'd change your mechanic if I were you. I'd rather have someone working on my car who was going to take some responsibility for it rather than simply remembering that he works for someone else the first time you ask for help. - it would not have caused him much issue to write a letter concerning the value of your car - unless of course his employer has forbidden him to do it, or he's using their equipment without permission.
|
|
I don't know if it helps, but last year I got £3200 for a written off Nissan Micra 1.3 GX 1999 T reg with 70k miles. I would say this Micra is broadly comparable with your car. Both are top of their respective ranges. My Micra was slightly newer but your Fiesta had much lower mileage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
