|
My friend had an accident whereby she came out of a road junction to turn right on a main road and you have to go half way as the road is the size of a dual carriagway and as she was waiting to go over the other side of the road a car came down and wrote the car off. This is put down to her fault as she was in the path of the vehicle. She has since found out that her MOT expired 3 days prior, any idea what the consequences will be?? Her have now written the car off and asked for her Log book and MOT
|
|
Insurers will be looking for any means to invalidate the claim, and this is good as any.
|
|
That's what I thought she does not have a leg to stand on really!!
|
|
She'll get taken to court now won't she?
|
|
Not necessarily.
|
|
The MOT expiry is one thing however with regard to fault it is down to timing, if she came out of the junction on to the main road having made sure that it was clear, moved to the centre section then some while later, a good few seconds later, the other car appeared and hit her car due to not driving with due care and attention to the suroundings then it may not be considered to be her fault.
|
|
The insurance have already said that it is her fault due to the fact that she was in the path of another vehicle, tey are not even going to fight it.
|
Hang on it seems to me there are two scenarios here. If she has pulled out INTO the path of an oncoming vehicle, or has pulled out and was waiting on a blind corner then definately her fault imho.
However if she has already pulled out on a straightish road was stationery and then the other party has just bowled into the side of her then I think it might be argued that he/she was either driving too fast or without due care and attention.
Obviously this is v difficult to prove after the event unless there were any witnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
If the car was in a roadworthy condition prior to the accident, then I think she will be OK. Afterll, what is three days? Not much. She must fight it to the end. Mistakes happen.
|
Not stated whether Plod was involved at the scene. If producer given for Test Certificate then hold hands up and show old one to prove only 3 days out of date. They may report and forward file to CPS who may or may not prosecute. Even if they do its no hanging matter - small fine and no points. If Plod was not involved then no prosecution.
Regarding the Insurance. An out of date Test Certificate does not invalidate Insurance but MAY and I repeat MAY give the Insurers grounds after paying out their risk to reclaim through County Court. If the vehicle was a write off then I would suspect that a thorough examination will have been done by a Vehicle Examiner to reach this conclusion during which time any serious defects will have come to light. The owner/driver of the car will know whether this is possible and the state of the vehicle pre collision.
The Policy of Insurance may well contain a clause that the vehicle has to be kept in good roadworthy condition which may well have been the case and if so 3 days out on a Test Certificate will have little clout IMHO.
dvd
|
as per dvd, but in simple english -
don't worry as yet. cross any bridges when she gets to them. don't be the first to blink. be positive, and hope everything will work out fine.
you can relax for now.
|
|
|
The police were present and never asked her to produce. I thought that an out of date MOT would definately invalidate the insurance?
The car has not been examined they took pictures of it and sent it to the engineer who then wrote it off by the images.
|
|
|
|
|
The car was in roadworthy condition but she is now panicking as when they ask for all the details what she should do. I told her that she will be liable for all the things that the insurance is paying out for her couresy car, the damage on the other vehiccle etc. etc
|
Well you shouldn't scare her needlessly.
Almost certainly there will be no issue at all. If there is an issue it is likely to be minor.
She should tell the truth.
If I have time later I'll drop back and explain the details.
|
Yes I realise this now, I just came out with it not thinking she needs my support not me putting a damper on things.
Oooh please that would be good if you come back with details!
|
Ok, two types of approach taken to this; one is those policies which say that the vehicle must have a valid MOT and the other which insist that the vehicle most be roadworthy.
Dealing with the second, then the lack of MOT is irrelevant and if, as you say, the vehicle was roadworthy then there are no issues. Dealing with the first then no MOT is relevant, but whether or not it would have passed an MOT is much mroe so. An MOT is usually taken as proof that a vehicle is roadworthy [I know, I know], but that is not the only method. Also, even if it did have an MOT, it is still possible that the vehicle is not roadworthy. However, since a structural engineer has been all over the car and presumably found nothing, and since the vehicle was stationary, then it is difficult to see that there was anything about the vehicle that had any effect on the accident.
In order to recover their costs from a third party claim they would have to show that the breach of Ts&Cs was material, which in this case it seemingly was not.
On the own damage expenses it is less restricted by law. They are not legally bound by the road traffic act to satisfy any losses suffered by their own policyholder. They are bound to do so by the contract [the insurance policy] but unless they sold it with some nefarious intent, that is a civil duty.
If the policy requests that the car is roadworthy (which is the more usual case) then whether or not it has an MOT may make that more or less easier to prove, but its not relevant. Unless the inspection came up with something, then there has been no breach and they are bound by the contract.
If the policy requests that the vehicle has an MOT and it does not, then theoretically the Ts&Cs have been breached and it is then questionable whether or not the insurance company have to fulfill their side of the contract.
Now we start moving into David's area, and he's not been about much lately. However, denying the claim would not usually be considered a reasonable response to the seemingly minor breach of no MOT certificate - especially since it was 3 days out, not 6 months ! It would perhaps be a more reasonable response if the vehicle was actually unroadworthy.
[This is all based on the fact that the vehicle *WAS* roadworthy, *WOULD* have passed and MOT, and that the condition of the vehicle was immaterial to the accident].
A more likely response, in keeping with what the courts would support, would be a reduction in the value paid out for the vehicle potentially reflecting the loss in value if you had tried to sll it without MOT.
All things considered, you're likely to take a slap on the wrist and little else.
Tell the truth openly, be prepared to stand your ground, never blink first, and I'm sure you'll be fine - this is quite a common occurrence.
If they do decide to get difficult about it, then come back and we'll help you through that - but it is most unlikely.
Pls excuse typos.
|
Thank you for taking the time in listing all pro's and cons and for your helpful advice I am going print your message to show my friend so that she can look in her terms and conditions to see what the score is.
You seem very up with this do you work for an insurance company?
much appreciated
|
|
|
|
