Car accident - Insurance???

[Shanks]

Thank you both very much - very interesting read.

[Karenmac]

Shanks,
Could you please give us the outcome of your sisters dilemma. We have just realised we are up a similar creek. Car parked normally and a car came along and hit it. Our car shunted the car parked in front. Then another car came along and hit the car which hit our car. Anyway, the insurers have now said our car is a write off. Went to get the certificates etc together as they asked, and found that the MOT is 5 weeks out of date. Car was serviced in December, so we are as sure as we can be that it was safe and roadworthy. No MOT is complete oversight on our part.
Really worried about everything and wondered how your sisters claim ended up. Grateful if you could let us know.

[Steed]

Your case is slightly different Karenmac because there is no doubt the insures will pay for your loss. They may try to devalue your vehicle due to not having an MOT, if they do you simply point to the service history, age & condition. The fact of having an MOT or not has very little bearing on your vehicle's value as an MOT only proves that a vehicle was road worthy on the day it was tested.

Be prepared to argue with them - as a rule of thumb you should recieve a settlement in the region of the amount you could have got selling the car privately on the day before the crash. You won't get the sort of figure a dealer would have given as that is often inflated over the true value to close a sale. All you have to do is be realistic & stick to your guns - good luck

[Karenmac]

Thanks Steed for your reassuring and very useful reply in how to deal with the insurers re our predicament. Hopefully they willl be understanding. Let's see how it goes...
Karenmac

So there is no point in having a valid MOT Certificate.... Or so it would seem.

Another pointless moneyspinner.....Or are things different now we have gone all computerised ?.

I mean,, they can even verify whether you are insured or not when you get your tax disc over the net.

[Steed]

No, you are right the MOT is pretty pointless - you have to look back to it's introduction to see why it would be needed. Without a test the worst rotten old & unsafe rust bucket could still be on the road until it mecanically gave up the ghost or killed someone. This way at least once a year it is roadworthy!

Insurers require a vehicle to be roadworthy but unless it has cheanged since I retired there was no specific requirement for an MOT, similaly as with the way the thread opened being in breach of the road traffic act in any way does not necessarily invalidate your insurance.

To take an extreme example, if you drove down the road with 4 bald tyres & failed to negotiate a corner safely with resultant damage to other peple's cars then your insurers would pay the Third Party losses - they might though refuse to pay you for your own loss.

The main basis of any insurance policy is liability with the second level being of personal losses if cover is comprehensive.

[DaveL]

One the subject of insurance companies determining the value of a vehicle which is a total loss, it's worth knocking them back on their first offer. I don't know how you take into account a lack of MOT, but when my vehicle was damaged beyond economical repair they valued it about £2,600.

I was advised by a few people to knock them back. I sent in several magazine adverts in for a car of similar model and age to show that the value they had put on it was too low. They revalued it and upped their offer by £200.

[Worldlife]

<snip>

However unfair it may seem if you hit someone in the rear you are responsible for the damage to the rear of that vehicle, whatever the reason it had to stop suddenly. This is because the law states you should always maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front. If you hit it, you didn't <snip>

Originally Posted by Steed

Not always!!!

I smashed in the back of Vauxhall Senator to the extent that the front doors jammed and the boot and rear wheels had totally collapsed. My Reliant Scimitar could be driven from the scene to the nearest garage!!!

I was on a dual carriageway and the driver of the Vauxhall drove straight over the centre reservation from a side road and turned right in the outside lane.

My insurers were pleased to note that on the dual carriageway, although travelling fast, just prior to the accident I had been on the inside lane. They were quite happy with my decision not to overtake on the inside and in pulling over to the outside lane in the expectation that the other driver would be moving into the inside lane.

I hit the other vehicle in the rear some distance from the intersection

The accident was regarded as entirely the fault of the Vauxhall driver for entering the dual carriageway without checking the road was clear and then failing to move across to the correct lane.

The Police were called to the scene but did not breathalise the other driver who was wearing a flower buttonhole from a special celebration.


On the question of "write offs" I had a low mileage Citroen BX Hurricane Turbo Diesel. Much of the damage was cosmetic but expensive to repair. The "write off value" would not have enabled a reasonable replacement. I asked if I was given the "write off" value I could pay for the scrap value of the vehicle and if they would reinsure the vehicle with the slight dents to the roof and rear wing.

The insurers and repairers then changed their tune and the repairers put in a fixed price tender to complete the job..... much cheaper than the original estimate.

The other party were responsible for the accident and paid all costs/

[Steed]

Good settlement WL

To be precise I should have added to to the text of mine you quote 'if you are travelling on the same road & in the same direction as the car in front'

Your accident would have been considered as -Third Party emerged into your path rather than simply - Hit in rear.

If I'd been the other driver I'd have tried to get you for at least 50% liability by the way But it's a moot point

[Worldlife]

If I'd been the other driver I'd have tried to get you for at least 50% liability by the way But it's a moot point

Originally Posted by Steed

They may have tried that Steed but their case was flawed in that they stated the junction was illuminated and I should have seen the car waiting on the side of the opposite dual carriageway - I produced photographic evidence that the junction to the side road was not illuminated!!!

Also took a series of timed photographs showing that because there was a slight rise in ground on the dual carriageway that for traffic moving at 60 mph the joining car needed to stop at the intersection to check before turning right and joining the carriageway to the right. The other driver merely stated that the road was clear when he started to cross both carriageways.

Your 50% offer Steed is totally rejected

Must admit until this experience I thought you always lost a case when you hit another driver in the rear!!

[Steed]

Well you do lose when you hit a car in the rear if you were travelling behind it in the same direction on the same road & it stops

50% wasn't an offer it was an accusation - wait til you see my witness statements

[Worldlife]

Well you do lose when you hit a car in the rear if you were travelling behind it in the same direction on the same road & it stops

50% wasn't an offer it was an accusation - wait til you see my witness statements

Originally Posted by Steed

I had a witness too who was willing to give evidence about the reckless driving of the party pulling out onto the dual carriageway but he vanished at about 90 mph

[Steed]

Witnesses do tend to leave the scene fairly quickly

[Behemoth]

This business of having an MOT for a car is silly really, it's only judged on the condition of the car when presented to the MOT station. When I had the MOT done on my Corsa (no longer have that car now) it passed with flying colours, about a week later the front brakes failed.

Thankfully it wasn't too much of a an expensive fix. We've got much much better cars on the road these days, I don't think I've ever seen a real wreck on the road within the last 5 years or so.

Round here you used to see alot of older cars, below A registration, now you don't see so many, F and G reg seem to be the oldest motors I see these days.

[Steed]

You're right Be - I guess the thinking is that if they stopped doing MOTs we would start getting old wrecks on the road again. There will always be someone who will drive a dangerous car if no one tells them not to

[Behemoth]

I have to say I saw something older than a G reg car today. Was going about my buisness, driving my S reg Nissan Almera to work (thats my new car) and I got stuck behind an elderly gent drving an A reg Mark 1 Mazda 323, I had to a double take on it, it was in such good condition I was utterly impressed.

Then I saw it again as I was buyingmy lunch in Tesco, all I can say is what a well maintained older car, not too often you see that sort of thing these days.

I've seen some right scruffy G reg Golf's and Sieraa's recently though, one was puffing out black smoke, potential MOT failure me thinks.

[Steed]

I know what you mean - whenever looking for a decent used car you always hope for something an old chap bought new when he retired, 3,000 miles a year tops, garaged, cleaned inside & out every Sunday

They usually get passed on through the family but sometimes one will be px'd

I always used to find a really great motor about a week after I'd already bought one

[Behemoth]

Join the club, a week after I bought my Almera, another one, same age came up but it was much much lower on the milage, still I'm happy with the car I've got, it was the car I was after too so me is happy

[Steed]

Thats the main thing, if it's what you wanted & you're pleased with it then the 'just missed' ones don't matter

[Behemoth]

No not really considering the one I missed out on wasn't the model I wanted. Got the Si version which is the 2.0 GTi Look a like, obviously a 1.4 engine, but very sporty and I have to say gives my mates Escort 1.8 GTI a very good run for it's money.

Was expecting it to drink petrol like leaky water tank but no it's very good, about 200 miles to a full tank of petrol.

[Scoobs]

I would cry if my car did 200 miles to a tankfull

[Worldlife]

I would cry if my car did 200 miles to a tankfull

Originally Posted by Scoobs

They would be crocodile tears if it was a tiny tank

[Behemoth]

It's because down here, I don't actually drive a great distance to work, about 13 miles each day, the engine hardly gets a chance to warm up.

I was looking for a car at the time which was a Turbo Diesel, but insurance was too high so still have to stick with petrol.

[glentyler]

I worked in this field a few years back & would guess the principle is still the same.

If her car is a total loss & has no MOT they will value it down when makeing a settlement offer. Even though it would have passed an MOT. Their argument for this is that cover is for 'market value' & that the market value of a vehicle without an MOT is less than for a vehicle with one.

Unless she has a bad insurance history [& I'm not implying she has ] they are unlikely to actually refuse cover for not having an MOT. Unfortunately there is no way to hide the fact as they will simply keep asking for the MOT until they either have it or an explanation.

If she insures via a broker she should tell them & let them explain it to the insurer for her. In all cases 'least said, soonest mended' but she'll have to tell them t some stage.

For what it's worth, when I worked on claims it's best to keep your explanation short & simple. Your third paragraph would be OK but leave out the bit abouot meaning to do it after xmas. The implication in that is that she had not forgotten but had purposly delayed it.

Good Luck

Originally Posted by Steed

STEED:

A pal is in a similiar boat. Had an accident, other driver admitted liability. Their insurers want to write off my friend's vehicle purely, not because of the amount of damage (which is minor) but because it's so old. Has insurance, but MOT has expired some time ago. Is it worth trying to claim?

[glentyler]

I should have mentioned that my friend does not want the car written off. It's a classic. Would rather accept any settlement so that he can actually get it fixed.

What are you thoughts?

[glentyler]

I should have mentioned that my friend does not want the car written off. It's a classic. Would rather accept any settlement so that he can actually get it fixed.

What are you thoughts?

[Steed]

Hi - sorry I haven't called in for some time.

Hopefully my reply is not too late - if your friend claims from his own insurance they will almost certainly agree with the Third Party's insurers & declare it an economic write off, he will be offered a settlement based on an old car with no MOT [ie not much]

However there is something he needs to look at carefully [this applied when I worked in the industry & may have changed] If your own insurance company write off your vehicle part of the settlement is that they take ownership of the salvage [this clause & the term salvage still apply if it is a drivable vehicle] BUT it used to be & maybe still is the case that if you settle with the Third Party insurers they won't be interested in the 'salvage' & the car remains yours

If he does that & keeps the car he must remember that his car technically has no value ie it was declared a write off & he has been paid it's value. It pays to approach reinsuring such a car carefully & getting full update advice [not just me with 10 year old facts ]

All of the above assumes he has comp cover, without it or Uninsured Loss cover he can only claim from the Third Party insurers only.

I've also assumed he doesn't have Classic Car cover which can pay out an agreed value rather than market rate.

[jetmizter2]

The term "Classic Car" doesnt hold any water unless the vehicle was insured on a "Classic Car" policy...

As Steed says:-

##################################
"If your own insurance company write off your vehicle part of the settlement is that they take ownership of the salvage [this clause & the term salvage still apply if it is a drivable vehicle]....

BUT it used to be & maybe still is the case that if you settle with the Third Party insurers they won't be interested in the 'salvage' & the car remains yours......."
##################################

If the claim goes thro the thrid party insurance the car still belongs to the client...(yours to keep and dispose of corrctley).. They may or may not deduct some part of the pay out for salvage?

My main worry is the lack of an MOT... Really it should not have been on the Road to be involved in an accident with out an MOT?

The lack of MOT Should/will effect the pay out.... (if i were dealing i would only base the vehicles PAV ( Pre Accident Value) on its trade or disposal Value.......

The actual sum payable is effected by... year of reg... Date of Accident....its over all condition (good/average/fair/poor)....mileage (above or below average)...

i would advise the best course of action to me is to argee a Cash In Lieu with the 3rd party engineer....

The two options as a 3rd party are

The car is a total loss most likely a Cat C or very rarely even a Cat D?

If its a Cat C they will need to inform their own insurence it has been deemed A total loss as a Cat C and also the DVLA........ the vehicle will need a V.I.C check on it before it goes back on the road at a registered VOSA testing station not just someone who does MOT's..... or a certificate of disposal if scrapped.....

If its a Cat D it should go unrecorded.... Cat D is dependant on the "reason for it being a total loss" ie:- can no longer get the parts to repair the vehicle or a parts delay that may involve a person being in a hire car and the cost of hire outways the value of the vehicle etc......

Cash in Lieu will be less than the total loss figure money wise but there is NO paper trail with this route.......They will keep the car and get a cash payout as well...

Hope this helps?

[glentyler]

Thanks for all your replies guys.

Just to clarify, the car is third party only. We do not want it written off, we want to keep it. The damage is minor i.e. bumper, and also just above and below the bumper. The costs are because it is such an old, rare Mercs.

Are you saying that we can still claim from the other party's insurers as a third party claim without MOT, thus obviously reducing the value of the car?

Will there be penalty points/fine to face in the case of no MOT?

If we keep the car on the road once it is fixed and MOT'd, how will it affect the insurance if the car is written off/worthless?

PS: Keep up the good work, I'm sure you are helping lots of people in the same dire situation.

[Steed]

Are you saying that we can still claim from the other party's insurers as a third party claim without MOT, thus obviously reducing the value of the car?

Yes, certainly

Will there be penalty points/fine to face in the case of no MOT?

Only if the police are involved - it's unlikely the Third Party insurers will contact them.

If we keep the car on the road once it is fixed and MOT'd, how will it affect the insurance if the car is written off/worthless?

You will need to tell your insurers about the accident, let them have a copy of the settlement letter from the Third Party insurers when you have it to prove a no fault claim on your behalf. Keep receipts for the repair work to prove it has at least some market value if it should be unlucky enough to be a write off again & to help convince your own insurers that you comply with policy conditions of roadworthyness if you later have a fault accident that you want them to pay.

If the car is valuable as a Classic it may be worth looking for a Classic Car policy or at least seeing how much the premium would be.

Jetmizter2 probably has more up to date info than me & hopefully will correct anything that may have changed since I left the job