Mot expired fully comp insurance refuse to pay out

[JunkiMunki]

I have a 28 year old son, owner of a Subaru Imprezza Turbo P reg since March 2006 former insurers Norwich Union Direct did not insure under 25's on this car, sought alternative insurance, NCB Letter from Nowich U DATED 26/5/2006 confirmed 1yrs NCB.

Express Insurance [broker] found most competitive quote was with a Co called Zenith, my son remained with broker and Company renewing his insurance every April/ May.

 

In April 2009, he once again accepted the renewal with the same broker/ company, and had accrued 4yrs NCB, the policy was from 25/42009 08.36 hours until 12.00 hrs on 22/4/2010, fully comprehensive SD&P Inc, he paid by monthly direct debit from his bank, however on Feb 12th 2010 returning from work he had an accident no other vehicle was involved and had to call his insurance co for a low loader as 1 of the cars wheels was badly damaged,he then found that his MOT had expired Dec 21st , this was a complete oversight on his part, RE: the planinning of his wedding, and the renovation of a house they were doing up.

His girlfreind rang broker Feb15th Re; Accident stated that his Mot had been overlooked and expired on DEC 21ST 2009, his girlfreind was assured that this was not a major issue, after answering a few more questions she was told that she would get a call back.

 

February 22nd, she rang broker again explained Re: previous call and that no one had been in contact car still at home address, was once again advised that car would be covered and that someone would call regarding the collection of the car, received a call that the car would be collected by the salvage company the next day 23/02/2010, car had been standing since 12thFeb [11 days].

 

March 8th 2010, having heard nothing since pick up of car she once again rang the broker re the assessment of the car advised that the car would be wrote off , and someone would get in touch with us

Heard nothing so she rang zenith on 14/4/2010 regarding the status and payment for the car was asked to send relevant documents to them, sent by R/DELIVERY NEXT DAY.

 

10/05/2010 girlfreind phoned insurance co to advise that my son would accept the £1545 previously quoted to him and that could it b sorted by the end of the week as it had been dragging on far to long now.

However he received a letter 17/05/2010 explaining that the insurance co was not paying out afteralkl and claim was finished telephoned zenith regarding this on the 18/05/2010, I mentioned that his MOT had only been expired for 54 days , but it had taken the insurance company 95 days to advise me of this despite constant phone calls and reassurances on the matter.

 

I then rang the ins com on the 2/06/2010 re having the car delivered bac to him, this was arranged for the next day 3/6/3010, car had been in salvage yard for exactly 100 days b4 being returned, it was delivered to a bit of council ground where we live, however was issued with a move or we will move letter a couple of days later.

 

Son decided to try and get car onto drive, upon trying to start the car found that the dump valve had been stolen / removed the exhaust had been loosened ready for removcal and the windscreen had been cracked, 7/6/2010, notified insurance company of the taken/stolen items removed from my car whilst supposedly in a secure compound was assured they would look into it no one has offered or rung with any explanations for the missing and damaged items to date.

 

I did forget to mention that the Insurance company have now said that he was not

insured at the time of the accident, and that they are not paying him out but they still collected the rest of the installments to due for that year. [ theoritacally he is then insured dont you think ]

 

any offers of good sound advice here really appreciate any help on this one please

thanx junkimunki;):?

Edited August 22, 2010 by JunkiMunki
forgoit 2 mention

[reallymadwoman]

Have you had any written explanation from the insurance company as to why they are not paying? If, for example, there was a fault with the steering which would have been picked up if the car had had an MOT test, they might be justified. Otherwise I think the MOT is irrelevant apart from reducing the value of the vehicle - you wouldn't pay the same price for a car with no MOT as you would for one with 11 months MOT.

 

Has all communication been by phone? If so, you need to start putting things in writing. Have the brokers helped at all? Your son has been paying them for several years, they should be doing their best for him.

 

I think your first step will probably be a formal complaint to the broker and/or the insurance company, but it depends on why the insurers are not paying.

[buzby]

The MoT WILL be relevant, especially if in the small print they state you are required to have the vehicle with 'a current MoT' in order to have effective cover. I've been wise to this as I have a number of vehicles that are garaged and off-road, but still with full cover but no MoT. I had to make sure that this would not be an issue, and one firm refused to quote on that basis.

 

I think we're all aware that Insurers are using every trick in the book to avoid paying out if they possibly can, but I'm interested as to how they picked up on the MoT, unless it was voluntarily disclosed at the time of the accident? Regarding the ongoing payments (by DD) yes, these would continue. They do not represent 30 days of cover, simply a part payment of the annual amount. To unpick this, a good many firms require the full annual amount to be paid, then a pro-rata credit made under their cancellation terms (assuming they backldated the cancellation to the expiry date of the MoT).

Edited August 22, 2010 by buzby

[Helford]

Have a look at page 10 of their policy document here:-

 

http://www.zenith.gi/Private_car_policy_06.09.pdf

[Helford]

...and detailed as a significant exclusion in their 'Key Facts' document.

 

http://www.zenith.gi/Private_car_keyfacts.pdf

 

[buzby]

Thanks for that. As I thought - they are treating this as a 'material fact' regarding cover, and the fact the MoT was overlooked will certainly permit them to decline cover for this reason alone. Your only issue is to ensure they calculate the termination correctly (was it backdated?). In that case, what was the cost of the cover for the period, and are they/will they arrange a refund of any overpayment. It's a hard lesson to learn, but may be usefulk later - firms like these are notorious for being unsympathetic.

[JunkiMunki]

I cant wait too see what explanation they use as to why the car was in storage for 100 days, where the missing parts went suppose to b a secure compound, why it took them over 106 days to tell my son that he was not covered , but still took the last 2 payments from his bank regardless of him not being insured .

 

He had been with the same firm for over 4 years, never having any trouble apart from some ridiculous admin errors that had to b sorted and clarified with the broker.

 

I am still confused as to why the claim had to go to GHI Insurance services uk ltd claims dept when he was insured with Zenith Insurance plc and the broker/agent was stated as being Motor Direct.

 

I have downloaded the history regarding the MOT for this car and that in itself should prove that it was an oversight on his part but the car is kept in A1 condition at all times , and only does around 4,000 miles per year, it does state within the policy , the paragraph before the MOT ANYONE COVERED BY THIS POLICY MUST TAKE ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO KEEP THE CAR IN A ROADWORTHY CONDITION AND TO PROTECT IT FROM LOSS OR DAMAGE , THIS IN ITSELF WAS PARAMOUNT AND OBVIOUS FROM ALL DOCUMENTATION HELD WITH MYSELF.

 

The vehicle was in excellent roadworthy condition at the time of the accident and the accident was purely down to human error .

[buzby]

(1) is this a first claim? The scenario you outline is not that unusual, as there are a number of factors that have to be pulled together before a repair is authorized and the work begins, not least getting confirmation that parts are available.

 

(2) payments will be taken for the reasons outlined earlier.

 

(3) duration of cover is irrelevant , as he could be with them for 20 years, and if all the boxes are not ticked you'll have no cover for your own damage, BUT have third party as the legal minimum.

 

(4) many firms outsource their claims handling to third party specialists, who only do this type of work. Why would you find this confusing.

 

(5) again, MoT history is irrelevant, yes it was an oversight, but remained a requirement of covet. Unless they were prepared to overlook this, and it appear they are not, you're stuffed.

 

(6) we are all aware that an MoT pass only indicates that ON THE DAY OF THE TEST the vehicle met the requirements of the test to pass. It does not mean that if in a perfectly legal condition for 365 days, on the 366 is somehow becomes roadworthy. This is not the issue. The fact is, the car was not officially 'road legal' and if stopped by the police, could easily have been prosecuted for the offence. As such, the insurers are using this as their reasons for declining cover. It is hardly ideal, but those are their terms and are standard for the industry (so you cannot formally argue they are somehow discriminatory or unfair), and as a material breach of the policy conditions took place, they are within their rights to decline cover in its entirety.

 

Your only route to appeal would be to the Insurance Ombudsman once you get the deadlock letter from Zenith, but I honestly doubt whether this would be successful in view if the policy document details, and the fact the requirement for an MoT to be in force for any cover to be effective is stated clearly.

[JunkiMunki]

http://www.zenith.gi/Private_car_policy_06.09.pdf IT ALSO STATES JUST BEFORE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE MOT , THAT THE CAR SHOUDL BE KEPT IN A ROADWORTHY CONDITION BY THE POLICY HOLDER, THIS WAS RELIGIOUSLY DONE AS ALL PREVIOUS MOT DATA CAN SHOW WHAT CONDITION VEHICLE WAS IN EVERY YEAR, WITH REGARD TO ITS PASS RATE AND ADVISORY NOTICES.

 

THERE WERE NO DEFECTS ON THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT IT WAS PURELY HUMAN ERROR AND WAS NOT CAUSED FROM SPEED EITHER, IT STATES THEY WILL CONDUCT A QUICK SPEEDY RETURN ON CLAIMS !!!!! i DO NOT THINK FOR ONR MINUTE THAT THEY HAVE UPHELD THAT STAEMENT 100 DAYS VEHICLE COMPOUNDED, 106 DAYS TO LET POLICY HOLDER KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT INSURING HIM, EVEN STRIPPED HIM OF HIS NCB, FOR A CLAIM THAT WAS NOT PAID OUT ON , SURELY IF THEY TOOK ALL HIS PREMIUMS THAT WERE DUE TO APRIL 2010 , THEN HAD THE AUDACITY TO WRITE AND TELL HIM ALL COVER CEASED DEC 2010, THEN WHAT RIGHT HAVE THEY TO THE LAST 4 MONTHS PREMIUM , IF THERE IS NO SERVICE FROM THAT COMPANY THIS CANT BE RIGHT.

 

IT ALSO STATES THAT THE VEHICLE WILL BE KEPT IN A SECURE COMPOUND/STORAGE UNTIL ASSESSORS HAVE MADE THERE REPORT, HOW COME THEN THAT WHILST IN THIS SUPPOSEDLY SECURE STORAGE UNIT THE "DUMP VALVE" WAS STOLEN/TAKEN FROM THE VEHICLE ALONG WITH A CRACK IN THE WINDSCREEN AND ALL BOLTS HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE LIFETIME WARRANTY SS EXHAUST UP, AFTER PHONING TE INS COMP WAS TOLD YOU WILL HAVE TYO SPEAK TO THE STORAGE PEOPLE SURELY THE SALVAGE COMPANY ARE EMPLOYED BY THE INSURERS ,THEREFORE IT IS THE INS CO DUTY TO INVESTIGATE THE MISSING AND DAMAGED PROPERTY, AND HE CAT CLAIM AS THEY HAD CANCELLED HIS INSURANCE WHAT A LAUGH I SEE A COMMENT WHICH STATES MONEY 4 NOTHING ERE !!!!

[buzby]

There's little point in shouting. (block caps are unreadable).

 

Your question has been asked and answered. Failure to comply with the terms of the policy will resilt in cancellation. I've already explained why the payments are taken, it is not as you believe for ongoing cover, but part payments for a policyvthe should have been paid in one go at the outset. You will be due a refund for the backdating of the cancellation, and no doubt you will make sure they do this.

 

As to their storage policy, this is a separate issue and nothing to do with thrill cancellation of cover. You may have a good case in pursuing them for making good the loss whilst in the care of their agent, but you'll need to pursue this in court at your expense.

[DesignTime]

Never under estimate a car insurance company.

[patdavies]

So the moral of this story seems to be that if you need to, absolutely legally, take a car with no MoT to/from a pre-booked test, don't insure with Zenith.

[DesignTime]

I bought a car today with no MOT form fleebay and took straight to the MOT testing station. It did fail on a bald tyre and front left brake pads. I was then able to drive it home (along way) and I know the car has been checked over by a mechanic and it was a bargain. My theory was if I got stopped by the police I think i would of been OK (they would not remove the car from me).

[buzby]

Not for not having a valid MoT, but you would have needed insurance otherwise this would have happened if stopped. From taking the MoT test, you are permitted to get it home, even if that is a 'long way'. Shame you'll miss out on the free retest n 10 working days, if it costs more to take it back!