Urgent insurance question... SV650.org has saved the day!!!

so if your insurance is void when your bike isn't Mot'd then how can it be riden to get the mot at all i hate insurence companys

What you really need to send them is a big ol' can of whoop ass.

[TSM]

Originally Posted by Godikus

so if your insurance is void when your bike isn't Mot'd then how can it be riden to get the mot at all i hate insurence companys

What you really need to send them is a big ol' can of whoop ass.

Good point??

You are allowed to ride your bike to a pre booked appointment MOT test station to get it MOT'd.

Should it fail however, you are not legally allowed to ride it home again.

Originally Posted by BigApe

You are allowed to ride your bike to a pre booked appointment MOT test station to get it MOT'd.

Should it fail however, you are not legally allowed to ride it home again.

Yeah thats the legal stand point, but it doesn't say anything like that in the insurance. unless in that situation your alloud ot ride your bike without mot and insurance.

For my sins I have worked in insurance for 14 years

You do NOT need an MOT to obtain insurance, thats fact. The clause they are referring to looks at your obligation to keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition. Failure to comply with this condition of the policy will void your contract.

That said, you are not arguing this clause because as far as your concerned the bike WAS roadworthy. I can see how the insurance believes they have the right to repudiate the claim but if they are quoting this condition then they are sadly mistaken and the ombudsman will over turn the decision.

Unfortunately I fear the company are not quoting this condition as repudiation and if I wanted to repudiate your claim I would do so by quoting the law, eg your bike needs a valid MOT to be on the road and as the bike was illegal then the contract is null & void (ab initio).

A couple of things to consider.....

1) The company I work for would have not turned this claim down as they apply a common sense approach on such cases eg if the claim was for an accident caused by failure of brakes and it was found the bike had no current MOT we would repudiate but if the accident was caused by a third party and not your brakes yet the bike still had no MOT we would honour the claim.

Unfortunately we still reserve the right to repudiate because the bike shouldn't have been on the road but we hardly ever exercise the right.

2) If the company repudiate your claim ab initio (as if cover never existed) as they should if they are claiming the contract has been broken they must also refund 100% of the premium paid to them. Not much compensation but better than losing your premium also.

3) It is ALWAYS worth complaining the ombudsman or at leats making the threat, we have over turned our decisions purely because we do not want bad publicity even though we were 100% legally right. Also the work that goes into such an investigation is quite costly, maybe be better to pay you out.

Unless we all had a copy of your policy documents not one of us here can definitively answer if you are covered or not but it seems very harsh and a grey area at best.

Good luck, PM me if you need anymore advice.

Chris

Originally Posted by inevitable

"you shall maintain your motorcycle in efficient and roadworthy condition..."

An MOT Certificate only proves that in the testers opinion the vehicle was roadworthy on the day of the test. The old style certificates even stated that the certificate should not be taken as evidence of the roadworthyness of the vehicle. I don't know that exact wording, but is along these lines. If you can prove that you have maintained the vehicle to keep it in safe condition then I believe they will lose their argument. There are many times when people's cars and bikes fail MOT's or require work before the next one is due. At times it can be difficult to get the work carried out in time for the next MOT, especially if the problem has only just occured. You are legally allowed to ride or drive a vehicle on the road to take it to an MOT test centre provided there are no defects with the vehicle that will make it unsafe and the appointment has been pre-arranged. Is the insurance company really going to turn round and say you are not insured when the law says you are doing nothing wrong. You have showed the insurance company that you have had the bike serviced and arranged additional repairs. If that is not keeping you bike road worthy then I don't know what is. Fight them all the way

I am pretty sure they are not referring to the fact it was in a unroadworthy state, they are referring to it being illegally on the road.

Our friend here is contesting that theft need not be on a road and should be covered regardless of MOT.

The company will probably argue the contract is null & void due to it not being legal on the road and a null & void policy doesn't cover anything.

Cheap I know but I a, sure they will argue that.

Originally Posted by Quiff Wichard

plus she says it does need to be MOT'd and they have every right to void it- unfortunately..!!!!!

No disrespect but that is rubbish, the conditions state "you shall maintain your motorcycle in efficient and roadworthy condition..." Thats exactly what he did and was arranging for the MOT to prove it. There is no court in this land that will back the insurer up. Had he had an accident while riding it on the road, thats another matter. Are you honestly going to tell me that hundreds or possibly thousands of people every year are uninsured because they have been getting some work done on their vehicle to get it through it's next MOT. I think not. Or how about a couple of weeks ago when all the testing station computers packed up and you couldn't arrange an MOT for love nor money. The insurance company are just trying to find any excuse to worm their way out of having to pay up. As I said before, fight them all the way

[northwind]

As's already been said, you need to exhaust the formal complaints process of the company. Now, this doesn't mean you have to hang around like a fish on a line- as a regulated company they'll have a formal complaints process. If they breach that process, that's also considered to be completing the complaints process. This is, I have to say, a result and a half if it happens- it shows a lack of due dilligence and is a clear breach of FSA regs. I was delighted when CIA messed up my complaint and let it go beyond their 28 days, it was another nail in their coffin. My case was a hell of a lot stronger than yours, I have to say, though.

How I'd complain...

"Dear Mr Pearce.

I refer to (past correspondence). I am disappointed to hear that you do not intend to honour my policy (ref XXXXX) following the theft of the insured vehicle.

Given your response (dated XXXX) I have been advised that the policy which you offered me was mis-sold, as it did not cover my vehicle under the circumstances clearly defined to your salesman. At the point of purchase I specified that the vehicle did not have an MOT certificate of roadworthiness, and that it would be parked in an on-street motorcycle bay. As it is now your contention that these circumstances are specifically excluded from the policy, it is clear that your salesman failed to advise me appropriately of the limitations and conditions of my cover as he is required to by law.

While I am sure that this was a genuine oversight on behalf of your salesman, the fact remains that the policy at no point protected my vehicle as agreed. Had he informed me appropriately, I would not have accepted the policy under the terms described.

Therefore, I wish to make a formal complaint on the basis of this misselling. While I believe that I have a clear claim to request full refund of the premium paid, due to the failure of the policy to satisfy the purpose for which it was sold, this would not address the loss of the vehicle. I acted in good faith on your salesman's advice that the vehicle was covered under the conditions described- had I been advised that this would not be the case, I would have made alternative arrangements to insure the vehicle, or taken steps to avoid the issue with the MOT certificate of roadwirthiness. Therefore, a simple refund will not reflect the true cost to me of your advisor's error.

I hope that we can reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion to this matter. However, in the event that you choose not to honour your obligations under the procedures laid out by the FSA, I have been advised that I will have a very strong case to present to the Financial Services Ombudsman.

I look forward to your response,"

Be formal, be nice, be reasonable, don't ever be angry. Remember that if you go to the Ombudsman, you'll be presenting a copy of this letter. You don't want to come across as an aggressive or snotty p***k.

Now, take that as it is- it's a while since I worked in GI and so I don't claim to be totally up to date. However, that's on the format of "letters that get results". Angry or obnoxious letters set the person dealing with the complaint against you from the word go. Agreived, yes. Dissapointed, absolutely, great word to drop. Get "advice" in wherever you can- you need to cast doubt on the initial sale, but also to imply that you've spoken to People Who Know Things and they've told you how to play it.

Most complaints that I dealt with were handled on the basis that the customer was complaining on the off chance. You don't want to be lumped in with that- you want to be the customer complaining with right on his side, and knowledge and law behind him. Anything with a sniff of Solicitor about it was like a silver bullet to some of our staff, too

Remember, you're not just trying to win. You're also trying to convince them that not paying out will cost them more than paying out, one way or another. Even if your complaint was rejected by the FSA, that costs them. So you also need to be the guy that shows no sign of backing down.

IMO!

Northwind i like your style