PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Non-essential journeys could void your insurance
bill w
post Tue, 7 Apr 2020 - 23:05
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 233
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. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 26)
Advertisement
post Tue, 7 Apr 2020 - 23:05
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
mickR
post Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 08:35
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 08:57) *
QUOTE (mike5100 @ Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 08:04) *
. . . .
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 09:03
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,579
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Apr 2020 - 23:33) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 09:26
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,858
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Apr 2020 - 19:39) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 8 Apr 2020 - 17:21) *
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


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 17:14
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 10:03) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Apr 2020 - 23:33) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 17:34
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,579
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (mickR @ Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 18:14) *
QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 10:03) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Apr 2020 - 23:33) *
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 17:58
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Mon, 11 May 2020 - 08:43
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,489
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 8 Apr 2020 - 19:25) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 8 Apr 2020 - 19:04) *
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 doubt it, the law allows a car to be driven to and from a pre-booked test or for repairs prior to a test for repairs without a valid test certificate in force.

I happen to own several vehicles that are exempt from annual testing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 27th May 2020 - 17:07
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.