Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Car Insurance Advice

Grateful for any advice anyone can give me in relation to the following:

Friend of mine drove into the back of a van last month. Her version of events is that she was behind the van waiting to pull out of a junction, the van moved off, she followed, the van stopped very suddenly for no apparent reason and she went into the back of it. Low speed, minimal impact but enough to put a dent in the back of the van and after discussions with the other driver, she was expecting them to claim against her insurance. Driver behind is always the one considered to be at fault in insurance claims, so an open and shut case.

When she got home, she checked the van's details on the DVLA website and found that the MOT had expired a month previously.

The driver of the van has put in a claim for whiplash, although apparently not claimed for the damage to the van. My layman's opinion is that the van was not roadworthy at the time of the accident, so all other bets are off, with no liability on my friend.

Anyone able to offer an informed opinion on this? My friend stands to lose about 10 years of no claims and see her renewal price go up by about £200, plus the knock-on effect on subsequent years.

Comments

  • If the van had no MOT? The van drivers insurance MAY be voided.
    Your friend would then have to claim off her own insurance for damage to her vehicle. Or if there is no significant damage, not bother to claim.
    Anything beyond this would need to go through the courts. If she has 'legal protection' on her policy. Her insurer may well take action.
  • Sorry to say but it won't make a difference, she still damaged his property and (allegedly) injured him.

    He might get charged a bit of extra premium by his insurers, and probably not even that to be honest.
  • MrLargo said:

    Grateful for any advice anyone can give me in relation to the following:

    Friend of mine drove into the back of a van last month. Her version of events is that she was behind the van waiting to pull out of a junction, the van moved off, she followed, the van stopped very suddenly for no apparent reason and she went into the back of it. Low speed, minimal impact but enough to put a dent in the back of the van and after discussions with the other driver, she was expecting them to claim against her insurance. Driver behind is always the one considered to be at fault in insurance claims, so an open and shut case.

    When she got home, she checked the van's details on the DVLA website and found that the MOT had expired a month previously.

    The driver of the van has put in a claim for whiplash, although apparently not claimed for the damage to the van. My layman's opinion is that the van was not roadworthy at the time of the accident, so all other bets are off, with no liability on my friend.

    Anyone able to offer an informed opinion on this? My friend stands to lose about 10 years of no claims and see her renewal price go up by about £200, plus the knock-on effect on subsequent years.

    The thing about vans is they are actually very difficult to see through or round. So, as you imply, surely an open and shout case.

    I'm not sure the other vehicle's road-worthiness is here or there, is it? Although she could report it if it was running without an MOT (and was over three years old). Did she also take a sneaky look on MIB to see if it was insured? If she'd hit say a horse instead, she'd still be liable - just my opinion.

    On NCD, she should NOT be losing the whole 10 years. I believe just two years is deducted for one claim. That said, in my view if you've built up a decent NCD record you should always pay the extra to protect it. But, in any event, although the discount will stay, it is inevitable that the base premium will increase anyway.
  • I'd approach the guy saying that you know the MOT wasn't valid and in order for him to not get in trouble that you're willing to pay to get the damage fixed privately...
  • I'd approach the guy saying that you know the MOT wasn't valid and in order for him to not get in trouble that you're willing to pay to get the damage fixed privately...

    He's not claiming for damage, just whiplash.

  • cafcfan said:

    MrLargo said:

    Grateful for any advice anyone can give me in relation to the following:

    Friend of mine drove into the back of a van last month. Her version of events is that she was behind the van waiting to pull out of a junction, the van moved off, she followed, the van stopped very suddenly for no apparent reason and she went into the back of it. Low speed, minimal impact but enough to put a dent in the back of the van and after discussions with the other driver, she was expecting them to claim against her insurance. Driver behind is always the one considered to be at fault in insurance claims, so an open and shut case.

    When she got home, she checked the van's details on the DVLA website and found that the MOT had expired a month previously.

    The driver of the van has put in a claim for whiplash, although apparently not claimed for the damage to the van. My layman's opinion is that the van was not roadworthy at the time of the accident, so all other bets are off, with no liability on my friend.

    Anyone able to offer an informed opinion on this? My friend stands to lose about 10 years of no claims and see her renewal price go up by about £200, plus the knock-on effect on subsequent years.

    I'm not sure the other vehicle's road-worthiness is here or there, is it? Although she could report it if it was running without an MOT (and was over three years old). Did she also take a sneaky look on MIB to see if it was insured? If she'd hit say a horse instead, she'd still be liable - just my opinion.

    Well that is effectively the question I'm asking. I take your point about the horse example. However, my understanding (or presumption) was that if, for example, you were in a collision with a drunk driver, any other circumstances go out of the window as the drunk is considered to be a danger just from being on the road. I thought that the same might apply to a non-roadworthy vehicle.

    On NCD, she should NOT be losing the whole 10 years. I believe just two years is deducted for one claim. That said, in my view if you've built up a decent NCD record you should always pay the extra to protect it. But, in any event, although the discount will stay, it is inevitable that the base premium will increase anyway.

    Cheers, I'll pass that on.


  • The MOT or lack thereof is a red herring in this respect.

    Damage and injury (allegedly) was caused by your friend, he can claim for both (but no law says he has to).

    It may well be IF it can be proven that the lack of MOT (which in itself doesn't mean the van was not roadworthy) or more realistically the condition of the van contributed to the accident there would be contributory negligence from the third party to reduce the pay out. But that seems unlikely in this case (we're the brake lights working?).

    Different insurers have different rules on bonus deduction, but you wouldn't lose it all for one accident (if on 10 years).

  • Rob7Lee said:

    The MOT or lack thereof is a red herring in this respect.

    Damage and injury (allegedly) was caused by your friend, he can claim for both (but no law says he has to).

    It may well be IF it can be proven that the lack of MOT (which in itself doesn't mean the van was not roadworthy) or more realistically the condition of the van contributed to the accident there would be contributory negligence from the third party to reduce the pay out. But that seems unlikely in this case (we're the brake lights working?).

    Different insurers have different rules on bonus deduction, but you wouldn't lose it all for one accident (if on 10 years).

    Thanks mate that's very helpful. I'll pass it on.
  • This article indicates" the only time you can legally drive without an MOT is when you’re travelling to and from a pre-booked MOT appointment.
    if you have an accident and don’t have an up-to-date MOT certificate, you’ll be liable to cover the costs".

    https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advice/is-car-insurance-valid-without-mot-0-5903-0.htm

    also

    https://blog.policyexpert.co.uk/motoring-cars/the-dangers-of-driving-without-an-mot/
  • IT_Andy said:

    This article indicates" the only time you can legally drive without an MOT is when you’re travelling to and from a pre-booked MOT appointment.
    if you have an accident and don’t have an up-to-date MOT certificate, you’ll be liable to cover the costs".

    https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advice/is-car-insurance-valid-without-mot-0-5903-0.htm

    also

    https://blog.policyexpert.co.uk/motoring-cars/the-dangers-of-driving-without-an-mot/

    Sort of correct, but would only potentially void your own insurance for own damage not third party liability or in this case the reverse.
  • Sponsored links:


  • IT_Andy said:

    This article indicates" the only time you can legally drive without an MOT is when you’re travelling to and from a pre-booked MOT appointment.
    if you have an accident and don’t have an up-to-date MOT certificate, you’ll be liable to cover the costs".

    https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advice/is-car-insurance-valid-without-mot-0-5903-0.htm

    also

    https://blog.policyexpert.co.uk/motoring-cars/the-dangers-of-driving-without-an-mot/

    All of that is true but it doesn't really apply here. The (allegedly) injured party is making a claim against MrLargo's friend. Whether or not that person has valid insurance on their car doesn't prevent them from making a claim against MrLargo's friend for injury allegedly caused by her.

  • Cheers all, much appreciated.
  • Hang on a minute. You say " the van stopped very suddenly for no apparent reason" and has no MOT. You sure this wasn't a "Crash for Cash" scam?

    Take a look at the piece on this on the Insurance Fraud Bureau website -
    https://www.insurancefraudbureau.org/insurance-fraud/crash-for-cash/

    The site lists things to look for and what to do if you think you were targeted.

    Not saying your friend was targeted but stopping suddenly without any reason is suspicious in my eyes.
  • Hang on a minute. You say " the van stopped very suddenly for no apparent reason" and has no MOT. You sure this wasn't a "Crash for Cash" scam?

    Take a look at the piece on this on the Insurance Fraud Bureau website -
    https://www.insurancefraudbureau.org/insurance-fraud/crash-for-cash/

    The site lists things to look for and what to do if you think you were targeted.

    Not saying your friend was targeted but stopping suddenly without any reason is suspicious in my eyes.

    That did cross my mind. Looked up the company that owns the van - big fleet of vehicles, well established company. 2 people in the van and only one of them making a claim - think it's unlikely to be that, and my friends recollection isn't sufficient to put that suggestion forward anyway.

    From what she told me, I don't think it's a deliberate accident, but I also don't think she hit him hard enough to cause him any physical injuries. Where there's blame there's a claim though.
  • MrLargo said:

    Hang on a minute. You say " the van stopped very suddenly for no apparent reason" and has no MOT. You sure this wasn't a "Crash for Cash" scam?

    Take a look at the piece on this on the Insurance Fraud Bureau website -
    https://www.insurancefraudbureau.org/insurance-fraud/crash-for-cash/

    The site lists things to look for and what to do if you think you were targeted.

    Not saying your friend was targeted but stopping suddenly without any reason is suspicious in my eyes.

    That did cross my mind. Looked up the company that owns the van - big fleet of vehicles, well established company. 2 people in the van and only one of them making a claim - think it's unlikely to be that, and my friends recollection isn't sufficient to put that suggestion forward anyway.

    From what she told me, I don't think it's a deliberate accident, but I also don't think she hit him hard enough to cause him any physical injuries. Where there's blame there's a claim though.
    Fair enough, although strange if its a vehicle from a big fleet that it had no MoT - the Fleet Manager would be in big trouble for putting vans out on the road with no MoT.

    Suspect the bloke is just trying it on, exactly the same as some bloke did when my wife literally touched his back bumper. He claimed £4k for whiplash. Sent the papers to the insurance with a note telling them what had happened and NOT to pay the claim and to fight it. They duly did and in the end, the bloke withdrew his claim. Might be worth exploring that course of action, particularly if he's not claiming for damage to the van.
Sign In or Register to comment.