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.
1
Comments
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.
He might get charged a bit of extra premium by his insurers, and probably not even that to be honest.
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.
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).
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/
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.
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.
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.