Hi my wife was parked behind someone at a junction when they moved forward and slammed the brakes on my wife went into this persons tow bar, there was no damage to that car but ours needed a new front impact dampener and an intercooler,

When we came to make a claim we were gutted to discover that our MOT had run out a few weeks earlier so making the insurance void.

The insurer as asked me to sign and return a consent and indemnity form to deal with this,

On the insurance i am the proposer and my wife is an additional driver who was driving the vehicle at the time.

Please advise me if i should sign that form or not, Thank you.

The good news is your Insurer cannot refuse your claim solely due to the car not having an MOT. This is assuming that the car was roadworthy and the brakes were in good condition

Some of the cheaper Insurers place a restriction in their policy requiring the car to have a current MOT, however this is completely unenforceable although the Insurers who include this will try and pull the wool over your eyes about the matter.

Let me know which Insurer your with and I'll post up the relevant regulations which they are obliged to follow.

Thank you i really appreciate this.

The insurer is 1st Central insurance.

your help is very appreciated thanks again.

It appears that you are just reading into this that the policy would be void and you have not been told this by Insurers. Should not affect the Insurers dealing with the claim, but you may need to get something to confirm that the car was in a roadworthy condition. This may just be a note from a garage, rather than the Insurers appointing someone independent to check the car.

1st Central are just an Insurance intermediary. Who are the actual Insurance underwriters for the policy, shown on the certificate ?

Thank you.

i will go and dig out the information, one thing in my favour a few weeks ago about 4 weeks after the insurance was informed the car sailed through its MOT with no advisories.

thanks again i will post up the name of the underwriters shortly.

Dug out the information as follows:

30% of the policy is underwritten by skyfire Ltd which surprise surprise according to the address is in the same building as 1st central insurance.

70% is underwritten by Lloyds Syndicate 1206 Authourised insurer

hope this helps, thankyou.

How did they know the MOT ran out?

Should not affect your insurance cover, as above.

i could not find the MOT certificate so they looked it up online and discovered it had ran out,

Thanks

Here are the relevant pieces of information you need to fire at your Insurers.

The Financial Ombudsman publish the following

"13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.

In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value."

financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html (copy and paste this into your browser)

This is basically saying the Insurers can only decline your claim (Own damage) if your car was "Unroadworthy" AND that the car being "Unroadworthy" directly caused of significantly caused the accident eg the brakes were not working and you were unable to stop yourself going into the back of someone due to this. It's upto the Insurers to prove the car was unroadworthy (And that it being unroadworthy caused or significantly caused the accident) and not for you to prove your car was roadworthy, however gathering evidence is not a bad thing for you to do.

Additionally your Insurer are regulated by the FSA who produce some basic rules called ICOBS which your Insurer MUST follow.

ICOBS contain the following which is relevant to your claim.

"Rule 8.1.2

A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except

where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:

(1) non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk which the

policyholder could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed;

or

(2) non-negligent misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk;

or

(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the

claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure

protection contract):

(a) under a 'life of another' contract, the warranty relates to a

statement of fact concerning the life to be assured and, if

the statement had been made by the life to be assured under

an 'own life' contract, the insurer could have rejected the

claim under this rule; or

(b) the warranty is material to the risk and was drawn to the

customer's attention before the conclusion of the contract."

fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel73/rel73icobs.pdf (Copy and paste this into your browser

I've highlighted the part relevant to your claim. What this means if your policy contains a warranty (Condition) and you breach it, then the Insurer cannot decline the claim unless the breach is connected to the claim. An example would be a Home Policy that requires you to have certain window locks, if you had a flood claim then the fact you did not have the relevant window locks is not connected / relevant to the claim so the Insurer must pay the claim. On the same vein they would have to pay a theft claim if they gained entry via the door and exited via the door as the window locks would not have stopped the theft. How this applies to your accident is in the same way as the Ombudsman explain it, if you don't have an MOT then this is not "connected" to the accident unless the car was not roadworthy and this is what caused the accident.

You need to ring your Insurers, ask to speak to a manager and refer them to the above, explain they cannot refused the claim due to lack of MOT, also refer them to 15 of the link from the Ombudsman that will require them to pay you daily compensation if they unreasonably delay your claim. Suggest they refer this to their senior underwriter and then come back to you and that if they don't sort it out you will make an offiicial complaint.

If they still stick their ground send them a letter by recorded delivery headed "Official Complaint" referiring to the above information I've listed, they should then back down as it will need to be fully investigated.

Thanks for the information you have provided in helping me.

well done dacouc , good info.

A few of the cheap and not cheerful Insurers include this "warranty" about having an MOT, funnily enough as do 1st Central, I've helped a couple of people who were in exactly the same position with 1st Central have their claims paid. They still leave the warranty in their policy when they know they cannot enforce it tut tut.

You can get it over turned by using the links and info I posted, you just need to speak to someone with authority as the staff taking the calls will have very little knowledge about Insurance apart from what they were taught a couple of months ago so will believe their policy wording is gospel.

Thanks for your help its appreciated.

I had an email from their claims department saying they have instructed their solicitors to chase me up for the costs of the claim so i think i will prepare a letter tonight and post it recorded delivery tomorrow i am just not a confident person on the telephone.

will keep you posted how it goes,

Thanks again.

Why don't you reply to their email by copying and pasting my earlier post, you just need to rewrite a couple of my lines to make them appropriate.

If you send them a letter, it could be construed as an "Official Complaint" which means they can take eight weeks to investigate and reply.

An email may avoid this and get someone with some sense to read it and action it.

Alternatively if you ring the Ombudsman, sometimes their staff will see it's an open and shut case that needs some prompting to the Insurer. They will sometimes ring the Insurer on your behalf and "Advise" them to sort the claim out.

Bear in mind that a lot of the frontline staff at the Ombudsman don't know much so sometimes they give bad advice.

Alternatively often your local MP may get involved

Thank you.

I have sent off an email late last night and will wait to see what happens next,

thanks again.

Don't let them try and tell you the FSA rules or the Ombudsmans guidelines do not apply to them as they do.

The FSA rule specifically covers this type of situation and again the Ombudsman guidance (It's a rule they apply) are specifically worded to cover this type of situation.

It's for the Insurer to prove the car was "Unroadworthy" and that it being unroadworthy caused or significantly caused the accident. If the car has been repaired since the accident, then that's their tough luck.

I would have copied and pasted along with referring to it that you will expect compensation for them unreasonably delaying the claim which is covered in the link from the Ombudsman.

You can also through the following at them, you would make a complaint to their local Trading Standards who would investigate separately. This is actually a law which they are potentially breaking as having an MOT is not required as demonstrated by the FSA and Ombudsman.

"12. Creating extra paperwork

Requiring a consumer who wishes to claim on an insurance

policy to produce documents which could not reasonably

be considered relevant as to whether the claim was valid, or

failing systematically to respond to pertinent correspondence,

in order to dissuade a consumer from exercising his/her

contractual rights."

oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/cpregs/oft979.pdf (Again copy and paste it into your browser to view the page).

Feel free to send a further email with the above in it to the same person at your Insurer along with the section from the Ombudsman about compensation for unreasonably delaying your claim.

If the senior underwriter at the Insurer who would have had input in drawing up your policy wording is not aware that the MOT restriction is not enforcable I would be surprised as it's common knowledge within the industry as demonstrated by the amount of posters on this thread who pointed this out. It annoys me when Insurers who know this is not enforcable try and pull the wool over customers eyes. On this vein, why not also remind the Insurer about their duty to "Treat Customers Fairly" which they're obliged to do by the FSA. The following is the guideline (Again this is not a bad thing to include in an email)

"Through TCF, we aim to deliver improved outcomes for retail consumers. Our six consumer outcomes explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers, as outlined in our July 2006 publication Treating customers fairly – towards fair outcomes for consumers.

Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.

Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly.

Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.

Outcome 4: Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances.

Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.

Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint."

fsa.gov.uk/doing/regulated/tcf (Copy and paste into browser).

The more relevant official documents you refer that show they're wrong and you understand your rights the more likely tghey're to drop the matter quickly. They will drop the matter at some time as they're in the wrong, the earlier they drop it the better for everyone.

Do not be afraid to drop a letter to the FSA afterwards explaining what they've done, the FSA may not take action on it from one letter but if they receive a few they will certainly look into it and possibly take action

the fact C&I forms have been issued over such a trivial issue in my mind suggets something more is going on here. OP, if a Lloyd's (of London) syndicate are the lead underwriter, Lloyd's have proceedures in force prior to FOS involvement and will be a better course of action, plus any approach to the FOS will redirect you to Lloyd's first.Lloyd's will throw it back to the underwriter giving them 2 weeks to sort it or they then take over the file. Keep the complaint simple, you don't need to tell them how to do their job.

Not sure telling them how to do their job when they don't seem to understand the basic principles of Insurance eg that requiring an MOT is not enforcable and specifically noted as so by the Ombudsman and alluded to by the FSA.

I agree a complaint to Lloyd's would be appropriate, however these can take time, a well worded email showing the claims handler where they're making a mistake and that the OP understands their rights could speed up the process if the claims staff have any intelligence.

Thanks to everyone for your help.

Just a quick update not heard anything yet, no phone calls or emails

Will keep you all updated

!!! Result !!!

Got a phone call from insurance company they are going to honour the claim and send a cheque out for my car also !!! Yippee !!!

Thanks for all your help.

Excellent, I'm pleased for you and well done to the guys.

I'll change your thread title.

My best, HB

That's good news.

I'm assuming you're insured with 1st Central, if your not still push the following through.

Could you do me a favour as I've helped on a few cases exactly the same as your case all through 1st Central, please insist they pay you compensation for the inconvenience they've caused you. Refer them to the link from the Ombudsman on Valuations for cars section 15.

Also send a letter to the FSA about it, they probably won't action it but if they get a few they will come down on 1st Central like a tonne of bricks with possible very large fines.

Hitting them in the pocket is the only way a rubbish company like 1st Central will learn, they know they cannot enforce the MOT but still persist, if you had not come onto this forum you could have lost thousands of pounds. If you cost them money and cause them problems they will eventually get the message. Their marketing guy reads this and other forums as he has messaged me before.

Make sure you transfer to a proper Insurer at renewal and tell as many of your friends about 1st Central.

Once again, what 1st Central did was wrong, they know they're wrong so were trying to pull a fast one on you that could have cost your thousands of pounds and impacted on you obtaining any type of Insurance for the rest of your life. Do not feel sorry for them, they cannot change their mind about paying your claim as they are duty bound to pay it so you don't need to pull any punches.

Tell the Insurer in writing about 8 weeks before renewal (Send it recorded delivery) that you will not be renewing, this will prevent them being spiteful and refusing to offer renewal which could potentially cause you problems

Thank you dacouc

Hi dacouc,

Originally 1st Central were going to give me £2030 and scrap the car, i would say it was worth £2030

When the insurer 1st Central telephoned yesterday, they told me they were going to knock 20% of the original payout as the car had no MOT at the time of the prang, and also still scrap the car.

I have shed blood, sweat and tears repairing this car with a friend and got it through 12 months Mot it seems such a waste for them to scrap it, i know that HBC Salvage will get about £50 from the insurer then auction my car off and pocket the money,

What should i do for the best?

Where is the car now eg do you have it or have the salvage yard already collected it?

Have you broached the subject of compensation for them unreasonably delaying the claim? How long could it be said they have unreasonably delayed the claim as this could amount to a considerable amount knowing how slow they are.