Illegality and vehicle hire: can you claim for a replacement vehicle without a valid MOT?

When your car is damaged in a road traffic accident and rendered unroadworthy, it is common practice to seek a replacement vehicle, especially if you were not at fault. But what happens if your damaged vehicle did not have a valid MOT at the time of the accident?

Can you still claim for the cost of a hire vehicle that has a valid MOT (or is less than 3 years old) or does that amount to betterment when your own vehicle was not on the road legally? The answer isn’t always straightforward. In this blog, we explore how the courts have approached this issue, and why a missing MOT might not be the end of a claim.

Jack v Borys [2019] 12 WLUK 606

In this case, the claimant’s vehicle hire claim was initially dismissed. The reasoning? His own vehicle should not have been on the road without a valid MOT, so receiving a roadworthy hire car was seen as putting him in a better position than before the accident.

But on appeal, the court took a more nuanced view. They found that:

• The claimant’s car was capable of being driven before the accident.
• The expired MOT was an oversight, not a deliberate act.
• The claimant would have renewed the MOT had he known it was expired.

The appeal judges ruled that, in this case, receiving a hire car did not amount to betterment. The lack of MOT did not mean the claimant suffered no loss, he had had a usable vehicle, and the accident deprived him of that use.

Majid Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP Zoo [2024] EWCA Civ 1479

Fast forward to 2024, and the Court of Appeal revisited this issue in Majid Ali v HSF Logistics. Again, the claimant’s vehicle had no valid MOT at the time of the accident, and again, the defendant argued illegality.

When the case was first heard, the court agreed with the defence, ruling that the claimant was not entitled to a hire car because his own vehicle could not legally be driven.

But on appeal, the tide turned:

• The claimant was unaware of the expired MOT.
• He had been using the vehicle prior to the accident.
• The lack of MOT didn’t justify depriving him of compensation for loss of use.

The Court of Appeal emphasised proportionality and fairness, aligned with the principles laid out in Patel v Mirza [2016]. The expired MOT was treated as a minor illegality, not a bar to recovery.

What does this mean for claimants?

While there is limited Scottish case law on this issue, English decisions offer helpful guidance. If a claimant:

• was genuinely unaware of the expired MOT,
• had a usable vehicle before the accident,
• and intended to renew the MOT,

then courts may treat not consider this a reason to deny recovery of hire charges.

However, if a claimant knowingly drove their vehicle without an MOT and had no intention of renewing it, the outcome could be very different. In such cases, the defence of illegality may succeed, especially if the claimant’s conduct is deemed immoral or criminal.

Legal takeaways

• Minor illegality (like an expired MOT) does not automatically void a vehicle hire claim.
• Loss of use of a vehicle is still compensable, even if the damaged vehicle was technically unlawful to drive.

If you would like to discuss any of the topics raised in this blog, please contact our Insurance team or your usual Brodies contact.