Crosswords0 min ago
Car Accident With No Mot! Helppppp
Hi,
I need some advice..
I had a car accident on Friday, the crash was not my fault (however other driver will not admit fault). We both agreed on scene not to go through insurance as I didn't want my renewal price to be massive when ive got to renew. So we said we'd get quotes for our cars and come to some kind of an arrangement. Now this woman is threatening me with going through insurance unless i pay for ALL her damage!
I then thought fine lets just do insurance, until i realised my MOT had ran out at the end of Nov. So i have now had my car MOT'd and its passed. But im not sure what will happen if she decided to go through insurance and im worried that my insurance wont be valid!!
p.s. we have not contacted any insurance companies yet... and i dont plan on!
Any help??
I need some advice..
I had a car accident on Friday, the crash was not my fault (however other driver will not admit fault). We both agreed on scene not to go through insurance as I didn't want my renewal price to be massive when ive got to renew. So we said we'd get quotes for our cars and come to some kind of an arrangement. Now this woman is threatening me with going through insurance unless i pay for ALL her damage!
I then thought fine lets just do insurance, until i realised my MOT had ran out at the end of Nov. So i have now had my car MOT'd and its passed. But im not sure what will happen if she decided to go through insurance and im worried that my insurance wont be valid!!
p.s. we have not contacted any insurance companies yet... and i dont plan on!
Any help??
Answers
Others may correct me here, but as far as I know, not having a current MOT does not invalidate your car insurance - it depends on the terms of your policy. Apart from that, I don't know anyone who has been asked to produce their MOT certificate when it's a straightforw
13:30 Wed 21st Dec 2016
“Your insurance policy will tell you whether a current MOT is required for you to be insured.”
No insurers can invalidate a motor policy for failure to have a current MoT."
Agreed ... but they can seek to recover from the policyholder any sums they're required by law to pay out to third parties where the 'insured' is in breach of a policy condition about a vehicle's roadworthiness.
No insurers can invalidate a motor policy for failure to have a current MoT."
Agreed ... but they can seek to recover from the policyholder any sums they're required by law to pay out to third parties where the 'insured' is in breach of a policy condition about a vehicle's roadworthiness.
Quite so. But they would have to prove that the incident was a direct result of the vehicle's condition (e.g. worn brakes or tyres making it unable to stop efficiently). They would be unlikely to succeed if the vehicle's deficiencies did not contribute towards the accident (e.g. headlights inoperative if the incident occurred in daylight).
However, we digress :-)
However, we digress :-)
I've been in a similar position to you:
A friend of mine borrowed my car (he was a named driver on the policy, insured to drive fully comp). He lost control and crashed my car - no other vehicles involved and it ended up being a write-off.
The insurance company requested all the relevant documents, including the MOT certificate.
However, I hadn't realised it had run out a week or so earlier.
I rang the insurance company and informed them, thinking that my policy might now not pay out.
All they did was paid me out for the value of my car with no MOT - i.e. what would my car have been worth if I was to have sold it with no current MOT certificate.
I would assume that they would do something similar with you - i.e. pay you a reduced amount ..... don't quote me though :)
A friend of mine borrowed my car (he was a named driver on the policy, insured to drive fully comp). He lost control and crashed my car - no other vehicles involved and it ended up being a write-off.
The insurance company requested all the relevant documents, including the MOT certificate.
However, I hadn't realised it had run out a week or so earlier.
I rang the insurance company and informed them, thinking that my policy might now not pay out.
All they did was paid me out for the value of my car with no MOT - i.e. what would my car have been worth if I was to have sold it with no current MOT certificate.
I would assume that they would do something similar with you - i.e. pay you a reduced amount ..... don't quote me though :)
no mot will invalidate your insurance.look at all these posts
https:/
https:/
Yes, those sites stating that insurance becomes invalid in the absence of an MoT are plainly and simply absolutely wrong. When it comes to Third Party cover insurers CANNOT repudiate liability in any circumstances other than the one I mentioned earlier regarding holding a licence. Furthermore, they would be hard pushed to deny cover for the insured’s own vehicle even if they had a term stating that an MoT must be held.
No MoT is a non-endorseable offence carrying a maximum fine of £1,000. Most drivers caught without one are dealt with by way of a fixed penalty of £50. No insurance is a far more serious offence (Maximum fine of £5,000 and either 6-8 points or an immediate disqualification). Those with no MoT would automatically be considered for the more serious charge is one led to the other. Quite simply, it doesn’t.
No MoT is a non-endorseable offence carrying a maximum fine of £1,000. Most drivers caught without one are dealt with by way of a fixed penalty of £50. No insurance is a far more serious offence (Maximum fine of £5,000 and either 6-8 points or an immediate disqualification). Those with no MoT would automatically be considered for the more serious charge is one led to the other. Quite simply, it doesn’t.
“NJ - but surely they can't repudiate liability (under s.151) due to the non-holding of a driving licence? “
This is an interesting conundrum, Arrods and one into which I’ve had a dig (hence my delay in replying).
Some years ago it was always understood that a driver not holding a driving licence did not invalidate Third Party insurance. However, my current policy says this:
“You are not covered:
When your vehicle is being driven with your permission by any person who you know has never held a driving licence; is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence; or is breaking the conditions of their driving licence.”
Leaving aside the question of disqualification for the moment, this means, according to my policy T&Cs, that if I had “any driver” cover on my car (a rarity these days though I do have “any driver in the event of a medical emergency effecting the insured”) and I lent my car to a driver who had never bothered to get a driving licence or a provisional licence holder who drove without ‘L’ plates, he would not be covered. Having not researched this (and having no intention of lending my car to an unlicensed driver) I simply assumed the law had been changed.
But then along comes S151 of the Road Traffic Act. It says (among many other things) this:
“In deciding whether a liability is or would be covered by the terms of a policy much of the policy purports to restrict, as the case may be, the insurance of the persons insured by the policy by reference to the holding by the driver of the vehicle of a licence authorising him to drive it shall be treated as of no effect.”
I’ve left out a few words which refer to “securities” (an alternative to insurance). But in essence I read this to say that if an insurer inserts a clause such as the one in mine (above) it will have no effect and cover to drivers without a licence must be provided.
Disqualification is a different matter entirely. I think it is common ground that insurers cannot be expected to provide cover for somebody disqualified from driving. Disqualification is not simply a matter of not holding a licence and the offences of driving without a licence and driving whilst disqualified are totally different both in meaning and maximum penalties.
So…I shall revert to my earlier understanding that the only time insurers can decline liability is when the driver is disqualified from driving. And thanks for prompting me to clarify the matter in my own mind (if nobody else’s!)
This is an interesting conundrum, Arrods and one into which I’ve had a dig (hence my delay in replying).
Some years ago it was always understood that a driver not holding a driving licence did not invalidate Third Party insurance. However, my current policy says this:
“You are not covered:
When your vehicle is being driven with your permission by any person who you know has never held a driving licence; is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence; or is breaking the conditions of their driving licence.”
Leaving aside the question of disqualification for the moment, this means, according to my policy T&Cs, that if I had “any driver” cover on my car (a rarity these days though I do have “any driver in the event of a medical emergency effecting the insured”) and I lent my car to a driver who had never bothered to get a driving licence or a provisional licence holder who drove without ‘L’ plates, he would not be covered. Having not researched this (and having no intention of lending my car to an unlicensed driver) I simply assumed the law had been changed.
But then along comes S151 of the Road Traffic Act. It says (among many other things) this:
“In deciding whether a liability is or would be covered by the terms of a policy much of the policy purports to restrict, as the case may be, the insurance of the persons insured by the policy by reference to the holding by the driver of the vehicle of a licence authorising him to drive it shall be treated as of no effect.”
I’ve left out a few words which refer to “securities” (an alternative to insurance). But in essence I read this to say that if an insurer inserts a clause such as the one in mine (above) it will have no effect and cover to drivers without a licence must be provided.
Disqualification is a different matter entirely. I think it is common ground that insurers cannot be expected to provide cover for somebody disqualified from driving. Disqualification is not simply a matter of not holding a licence and the offences of driving without a licence and driving whilst disqualified are totally different both in meaning and maximum penalties.
So…I shall revert to my earlier understanding that the only time insurers can decline liability is when the driver is disqualified from driving. And thanks for prompting me to clarify the matter in my own mind (if nobody else’s!)
Well, here goes! Just to be clear, when talking about repudiating liability, I don’t think the legislators would have allowed insurers to wash their hands of a third party claim where their policyholder was unlicensed (even though there is the MIB back-stop).
S.148 of the RTA which has been around for many years, makes it clear that policy conditions such as age of driver, condition of vehicle etc have no effect so far as the ‘legality’ of the motor cover is concerned. In other words, you can’t be prosecuted for no insurance if you’re in breach of one of those conditions. But the insurer can still (a) throw out the own damage claim (provided as you said earlier that there’s a link between the breach and the accident) and (b) seek to recover from the insured any sums it was required to pay out to the injured party.
In the days before ‘til 70 driving licences, insurers did not penalise drivers who had simply forgotten to renew their three-yearly licence – hence the wording on certificates about ‘has held and has not been disqualified from holding etc’). Then along comes the EU Second Motor Insurance Directive requiring insurers not to deny a third party claim where the insured is unlicensed. At first, the then DtP proposed to implement the Directive by adding the licence requirement to s.148 – which would have meant, again, that a no insurance offence could not be committed.
I was around (at a relatively junior level I must admit) when this was all going through and the DtP were persuaded to add the licence requirement to s.151, rather than s.148. As I understood it, in this way an unlicensed driver could also be prosecuted for a no-insurance offence. I’ve never had any experience of how courts deal with someone who is unlicensed and, presumably, also uninsured – if the scenario I have described in the previous sentence is correct. Perhaps an insurer has to go through a process of voiding the policy ab initio for this to work (I just don’t know)?
s.148 is essentially saying that any of the excluded conditions listed will be of no effect so far as the ‘validity’ of the insurance is concerned. S.151 on the other hand is saying that the insurer’s duty is to satisfy a third party claim, notwithstanding that the ‘insured’ may be unlicensed.
In a nutshell, I think s.148 and s.151 have the same effect i.e. an insurer cannot repudiate liability where the insured is in breach of any of the requirements referred to in either of these sections - and the insurer must meet the third party claim. In both cases, though, the insurer retains a right of recovery against the insured. The only difference is that a no-insurance offence cannot be committed where the breach is one listed under s.148 but it can (though I’ve no practical experience) if the breach is under s.151 i.e. an unlicensed driver.
What do you reckon? I’d be particularly interested in any court experience you may have where someone is ‘up’ for a no driving licence offence i.e. is there a link with no insurance?
S.148 of the RTA which has been around for many years, makes it clear that policy conditions such as age of driver, condition of vehicle etc have no effect so far as the ‘legality’ of the motor cover is concerned. In other words, you can’t be prosecuted for no insurance if you’re in breach of one of those conditions. But the insurer can still (a) throw out the own damage claim (provided as you said earlier that there’s a link between the breach and the accident) and (b) seek to recover from the insured any sums it was required to pay out to the injured party.
In the days before ‘til 70 driving licences, insurers did not penalise drivers who had simply forgotten to renew their three-yearly licence – hence the wording on certificates about ‘has held and has not been disqualified from holding etc’). Then along comes the EU Second Motor Insurance Directive requiring insurers not to deny a third party claim where the insured is unlicensed. At first, the then DtP proposed to implement the Directive by adding the licence requirement to s.148 – which would have meant, again, that a no insurance offence could not be committed.
I was around (at a relatively junior level I must admit) when this was all going through and the DtP were persuaded to add the licence requirement to s.151, rather than s.148. As I understood it, in this way an unlicensed driver could also be prosecuted for a no-insurance offence. I’ve never had any experience of how courts deal with someone who is unlicensed and, presumably, also uninsured – if the scenario I have described in the previous sentence is correct. Perhaps an insurer has to go through a process of voiding the policy ab initio for this to work (I just don’t know)?
s.148 is essentially saying that any of the excluded conditions listed will be of no effect so far as the ‘validity’ of the insurance is concerned. S.151 on the other hand is saying that the insurer’s duty is to satisfy a third party claim, notwithstanding that the ‘insured’ may be unlicensed.
In a nutshell, I think s.148 and s.151 have the same effect i.e. an insurer cannot repudiate liability where the insured is in breach of any of the requirements referred to in either of these sections - and the insurer must meet the third party claim. In both cases, though, the insurer retains a right of recovery against the insured. The only difference is that a no-insurance offence cannot be committed where the breach is one listed under s.148 but it can (though I’ve no practical experience) if the breach is under s.151 i.e. an unlicensed driver.
What do you reckon? I’d be particularly interested in any court experience you may have where someone is ‘up’ for a no driving licence offence i.e. is there a link with no insurance?
“In a nutshell, I think s.148 and s.151 have the same effect i.e. an insurer cannot repudiate liability where the insured is in breach of any of the requirements referred to in either of these sections - and the insurer must meet the third party claim.”
I think you’re right about that.
“The only difference is that a no-insurance offence cannot be committed where the breach is one listed under s.148 but it can (though I’ve no practical experience) if the breach is under s.151 i.e. an unlicensed driver. “
I'mnot so sure about that. S151(3) certainly does mention the licence aspect and says that clauses that restrict liability in the event of no licence shall be of no effect. So I take that to read that they must meet claims and, ergo, that an unlicenced driver has RTA cover.
I must say I have seen a number of drivers charged solely with No Licence (or Driving otherwise than in accordance) and I would expect if no licence invalidated cover, that the more serious No Insurance charge to be brought alongside.
All interesting stuff and a bit of a step away from no MoT !!!
I think you’re right about that.
“The only difference is that a no-insurance offence cannot be committed where the breach is one listed under s.148 but it can (though I’ve no practical experience) if the breach is under s.151 i.e. an unlicensed driver. “
I'mnot so sure about that. S151(3) certainly does mention the licence aspect and says that clauses that restrict liability in the event of no licence shall be of no effect. So I take that to read that they must meet claims and, ergo, that an unlicenced driver has RTA cover.
I must say I have seen a number of drivers charged solely with No Licence (or Driving otherwise than in accordance) and I would expect if no licence invalidated cover, that the more serious No Insurance charge to be brought alongside.
All interesting stuff and a bit of a step away from no MoT !!!
I think we may have to agree to disagree! S.148 talks specifically about the listed exclusions having no effect so far as the 'insurance' is concerned. S.151 is concerned specifically where a 'judgment' has been obtained against the liable party and the absence of a licence being irrelevant. But no matter.
What was particularly interesting about your response was the fact that you weren't aware of cases where no insurance was brought alongside no licence (as you say, the more serious offence). Makes me wonder why we bothered to make the case - or perhaps it was just flawed.
What was particularly interesting about your response was the fact that you weren't aware of cases where no insurance was brought alongside no licence (as you say, the more serious offence). Makes me wonder why we bothered to make the case - or perhaps it was just flawed.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.