Non-essential journeys could void your insurance |
Non-essential journeys could void your insurance |
Tue, 7 Apr 2020 - 23:05
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 294 Joined: 8 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,341 |
Lawyer Nick Freeman, 63, also known as Mr Loophole, said: "Essential travel is largely defined as shopping for necessities, picking up medical suppliers, caring for a vulnerable person and getting to and from work if you cannot do so from home.
"Anything else is not really acceptable so if you have an accident and cannot prove that your journey was essential your insurance may be void." Yes I know it's the Sun. , that fine lawyer's reference journal. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 7 Apr 2020 - 23:05
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 08:35
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,235 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
. . . . But can we not infer that only where the lack of an MOT had a direct bearing on an accident would it be usable by the insurance company? . . . . . How could the lack of a current test certificate have any bearing on an accident? If it could be shown that the vehicle was in some way unroadworthy, that's one thing, but an MoT certificate merely shows that the items inspected passed the test when it was conducted. My point was that the ombudsman case posted didnt appear to me to be a blanket decision covering lack of mot. As you say The issue really is if the vehicle was roadworthy. An mot test although vaild for a year is only relavant at the time its issued and a pass only reflects components were in serviceable condition at the time of inspection, so technically something could make the vehicle unroadworthy the moment you drive out the test centre. That in my view is far more relevant than having a certificate to say it was roadworthy on one particular day at a specific time. |
|
|
Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 09:03
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
Reading that i would suggest the decision is restricted to the particular aspects of that claim. In that the car was hit from behind and therefore lack of mot having no bearing on claim except possilbly the vehicle value. That to could be argued in that if the vehicle was at some point offered for sale, the lack of mot would have been brought to light. It would then have been resolved by way of a new test and cert. Its not uncommon at all for a buyer to request a new mot if the valid one was some time ago. The claimant is entitled to the market value of the car before the accident, which would be adversely affected by the lack of an MOT. He is not entitled to the value in some hypothetical sale scenario, with a valid MOT. |
|
|
Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 09:26
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Indeed, it's recently been ruled that no MOT does not amount to the sort of offence that would impact insurance. Any qualification for that? https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2020/0...led-to-damages/ It is a novel proposition that somebody who does not have an MOT certificate for their car which they are driving is thereby guilty of a serious criminal offence, for ex turpi causa will only be properly invoked in circumstances where there is serious criminality. Failure to have an MOT certificate due to an oversight could possibly give rise to a fine, but that is not what one would describe as criminal behaviour, in the true sense of the word. I am staggered that it was pleaded. I am even more staggered that it was argued before the District Judge. The District Judge would have none of it, however, and said that ex turpi causa had no part to play in this case. He was unquestionably right about that. This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 09:28 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 17:14
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,235 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
Reading that i would suggest the decision is restricted to the particular aspects of that claim. In that the car was hit from behind and therefore lack of mot having no bearing on claim except possilbly the vehicle value. That to could be argued in that if the vehicle was at some point offered for sale, the lack of mot would have been brought to light. It would then have been resolved by way of a new test and cert. Its not uncommon at all for a buyer to request a new mot if the valid one was some time ago. The claimant is entitled to the market value of the car before the accident, which would be adversely affected by the lack of an MOT. He is not entitled to the value in some hypothetical sale scenario, with a valid MOT. Youre limiting your hypothetical scenario to total loss not repairable accident damage. |
|
|
Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 17:34
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
Reading that i would suggest the decision is restricted to the particular aspects of that claim. In that the car was hit from behind and therefore lack of mot having no bearing on claim except possilbly the vehicle value. That to could be argued in that if the vehicle was at some point offered for sale, the lack of mot would have been brought to light. It would then have been resolved by way of a new test and cert. Its not uncommon at all for a buyer to request a new mot if the valid one was some time ago. The claimant is entitled to the market value of the car before the accident, which would be adversely affected by the lack of an MOT. He is not entitled to the value in some hypothetical sale scenario, with a valid MOT. Youre limiting your hypothetical scenario to total loss not repairable accident damage. In the case of repairable damage, surely the only relevance of the lack of an MOT would be in the decision whether to repair or write off? |
|
|
Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 17:58
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,235 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
You were suggesting the claimant entitlement to market value before the accident. Im just pointing out that would only be the case in total loss claims and not a repairable claim. Such are the costings and percentages taken into account the lack of valid mot wouldnt have enough effect to determind between reair and total loss. This post has been edited by mickR: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 18:05 |
|
|
Mon, 11 May 2020 - 08:43
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,963 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
Although some insurers now state you aren’t insured if you have no MOT, LV for example. Is that a term that can be enforced? I happen to own several vehicles that are exempt from annual testing. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:11 |