Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > If your cars mot has run out, is your insurance v... (Page 2)

IMPORTANT! This is MoneySavingExpert's open forum - anyone can post

Please exercise caution & report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

  • Be nice to all MoneySavers
  • All the best tips go in the MoneySavingExpert weekly email

    Plus all the new guides, deals & loopholes

  • No spam/referral links
or Login with Facebook
If your cars mot has run out, is your insurance void?
Closed Thread
Views: 6,237
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
# 21
Outpost
Old 30-06-2011, 10:32 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,371
Default

Cars need insurance?
Outpost is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Outpost For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 22
3v3
Old 30-06-2011, 11:01 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outpost View Post
Cars need insurance?
I think you need to sit down.
Do you have anyone who can come and sit with you? A close friend? Relative?

I have some sad news for you; not only do they need insurance with the MOT, but also (brace yourself, this may hurt) t.a.x.

Deep breaths! Deeeeeeeeep breaths!!!!!!!!

(Someone call a medic!!!!!!! - Outpost is showing signs of heart failure ..... Think it's shock induced .... )
3v3 is offline
Report Post
# 23
Norman Castle
Old 30-06-2011, 11:02 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 3,023
Default

If the ombudsmans ruling states that no MOT does not mean you are not insured, have drivers wrongly been convicted for driving without insurance based on the invalid terms in some insurance policies?.

Norman Castle is offline
Report Post
# 24
Outpost
Old 30-06-2011, 11:23 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3v3 View Post
I think you need to sit down.
I am sitting down. Very few people use a computer standing up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3v3 View Post
Do you have anyone who can come and sit with you? A close friend? Relative?
Nope. Just balloon animals with faces drawn on them with a Sharpie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3v3 View Post
I have some sad news for you; not only do they need insurance with the MOT, but also (brace yourself, this may hurt) t.a.x.
I have insurance, an MOT and tax.

Must get round to buying a car to go with them...
Outpost is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Outpost For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 25
3v3
Old 30-06-2011, 11:26 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outpost View Post
I am sitting down. Very few people use a computer standing up.


Nope. Just balloon animals with faces drawn on them with a Sharpie.


I have insurance, an MOT and tax.

Must get round to buying a car to go with them...
3v3 is offline
Report Post
# 26
Outpost
Old 30-06-2011, 11:28 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,371
Default



See? This is Paul the Dragon.
Outpost is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Outpost For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 27
shaun from Africa
Old 30-06-2011, 11:53 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,094
Default

Quote:
If the ombudsmans ruling states that no MOT does not mean you are not insured, have drivers wrongly been convicted for driving without insurance based on the invalid terms in some insurance policies?.
Probably not as the terms may not be invalid or illegal.
Just because the ombudsman has stated that no MOT doesn't mean that your insurance is invalid doesn't mean that an insurer can't have a clause in the policy stating that to have a policy with them your car must have an MOT. (if required.)

Some insurance companies won't insure young drivers if they don't have a "spy box" fitted. Having to have this box isn't a legal requirement, simply an insurance Co requirement, but fail to have one if your policy states you must, and your policy will probably be invalidated.
shaun from Africa is offline
Report Post
# 28
sarahg1969
Old 01-07-2011, 12:18 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Castle View Post
If the ombudsmans ruling states that no MOT does not mean you are not insured, have drivers wrongly been convicted for driving without insurance based on the invalid terms in some insurance policies?.
I don't know. Does this actually happen? The insurance policy would not automatically become void for no MOT, so third party cover would still exist.

How far do the police go when investigating these instances? Surely it's just a straight ticket (with no points) for no MOT? They don't start looking at the Ts & Cs of each policy, do they?
sarahg1969 is offline
Report Post
# 29
Norman Castle
Old 01-07-2011, 9:19 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 3,023
Default

Quote:
How far do the police go when investigating these instances? Surely it's just a straight ticket (with no points) for no MOT? They don't start looking at the Ts & Cs of each policy, do they?
If a police officer believed your expired MOT invalidated your insurance and contacted your insurance company who then confirmed this belief by stating the T&C, it's unlikely the police officer would then accept a drivers reasoning that the ombudsman has over-ruled this condition. This would result in a driver either being prosecuted for driving uninsured or having to prove their insurance is valid which would not be simple.

Are the police aware of the ombudsmans ruling?, and has the ombudsmans ruling stopped these unfair terms being shown in insurance policies?


Last edited by Norman Castle; 01-07-2011 at 9:57 AM.
Norman Castle is offline
Report Post
# 30
mikey72
Old 01-07-2011, 9:37 AM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun from Africa View Post
Probably not as the terms may not be invalid or illegal.
Just because the ombudsman has stated that no MOT doesn't mean that your insurance is invalid doesn't mean that an insurer can't have a clause in the policy stating that to have a policy with them your car must have an MOT. (if required.)

Some insurance companies won't insure young drivers if they don't have a "spy box" fitted. Having to have this box isn't a legal requirement, simply an insurance Co requirement, but fail to have one if your policy states you must, and your policy will probably be invalidated.
But if you take the box off, or exceed the miles, or drive out of time and don't pay, you still have third party liability, whatever it says in the t&c's. The insurer may try to recover it off you later, but they'll still have to pay out.
mikey72 is offline
Report Post
# 31
scheming_gypsy
Old 01-07-2011, 9:52 AM
PPR
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 17,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Castle View Post
If an police officer believed your expired MOT invalidated your insurance and contacted your insurance company who then confirmed this belief by stating the T&C, it's unlikely the police officer would then accept a drivers reasoning that the ombudsman has over-ruled this condition. This would result in a driver either being prosecuted for driving uninsured or having to prove their insurance is valid which would not be simple.

Are the police aware of the ombudsmans ruling?, and has the ombudsmans ruling stopped these unfair terms being shown in insurance policies?

but that doesn't mean the insurance is void.
scheming_gypsy is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to scheming_gypsy For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 32
Norman Castle
Old 01-07-2011, 10:00 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 3,023
Default

Quote:
but that doesn't mean the insurance is void
Yes, we know that.

The question is "Are the police aware of the ombudsmans ruling?, and has the ombudsmans ruling stopped these unfair terms being shown in insurance policies?"

Norman Castle is offline
Report Post
# 33
pitkin2020
Old 01-07-2011, 10:35 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: in my own little world...
Posts: 3,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey72 View Post
But if you take the box off, or exceed the miles, or drive out of time and don't pay, you still have third party liability, whatever it says in the t&c's. The insurer may try to recover it off you later, but they'll still have to pay out.
If you don't pay they are likely to cancel the contract so you won't be covered as you will have no insurance!!
Everyones opinion is the most important.....no wonder nothing is ever agreed on.
pitkin2020 is offline
Report Post
# 34
sarahg1969
Old 01-07-2011, 10:35 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,432
Default

It's not the ombudsman's ruling that makes the policy not void. The ombudsman's ruling relates to the payment of own damage.

Lack of MOT would not automatically void the policy. The insurers may try to avoid paying out any own damage claims, but the third party cover would still be in force, quite aside from anything the ombudsman says.

I wonder if there are any cases where someone has been found guilty of having no insurance, purely because their MOT certificate has expired?

Section 148 (2)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148

If there is a policy in force, an insurer cannot refuse to deal with third party claims simply because of the lack of a valid MOT certificate. Ergo, a vehicle without MOT is still insured, and a charge of no insurance must fail. This does not mean, of course, that the police, CPS or Magistrates would necessarily understand, but an appeal on conviction should be successful.

Last edited by sarahg1969; 01-07-2011 at 10:50 AM.
sarahg1969 is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to sarahg1969 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 35
thenudeone
Old 01-07-2011, 1:35 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pitkin2020 View Post
If you don't pay they are likely to cancel the contract so you won't be covered as you will have no insurance!!
Yes but they have to give you notice before cancellation takes effect. (unless they issue certificates on a month by month basis like Budget does (or used to))
We need the earth for food, water, and shelter.
The earth needs us for nothing.
The earth does not belong to us.
We belong to the Earth.
thenudeone is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to thenudeone For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 36
thenudeone
Old 01-07-2011, 1:42 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,197
Default

This sort of question reminds me that people have forgotten what insurance is for. It is to cover your liability in the event that you are liable for damage or injury to others. So in order to "cover you", the driver must be at fault. It doesn't matter what that fault is - driving carelessly, driving while drunk, or over the speed limit, with an unroadworthy vehicle; or whether there are other legal issues that are unrelated to blame, such as if their licence has expired - the insurer still has to cover you.
Insurers can try to limit their cover for damage to the insured's vehicle (although some of these exclusions may be found to be unfair), but not third parties.
We need the earth for food, water, and shelter.
The earth needs us for nothing.
The earth does not belong to us.
We belong to the Earth.
thenudeone is offline
Report Post
# 37
creeping_jesus
Old 01-07-2011, 2:51 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim22 View Post
I cant find any exclusions due to lack of MOT. Exclusions that do void the insurance include driving on the Nurburgring, or the car being affected by radiation!
Sorry, saw this and had to laugh. Radiation eh, better not drive to chenobyl then...
creeping_jesus is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to creeping_jesus For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 38
Norman Castle
Old 01-07-2011, 4:29 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 3,023
Default

So, the question, If your cars mot has run out, is your insurance void?, only relates to claiming for your own losses from your own insurer. Third party losses have never been in doubt. If so, driving without an MOT has never meant you are driving while uninsured but that a section of your policy may be void and that your own losses may not be covered by your policy and it is this that the ombudsman has ruled as unfair. Is this correct?


Last edited by Norman Castle; 01-07-2011 at 4:32 PM.
Norman Castle is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Norman Castle For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 39
sarahg1969
Old 01-07-2011, 4:50 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Castle View Post
So, the question, If your cars mot has run out, is your insurance void?, only relates to claiming for your own losses from your own insurer. Third party losses have never been in doubt. If so, driving without an MOT has never meant you are driving while uninsured but that a section of your policy may be void and that your own losses may not be covered by your policy and it is this that the ombudsman has ruled as unfair. Is this correct?
Yes - except that nothing would be "void", as such.
sarahg1969 is offline
Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sarahg1969 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 40
atrixblue.-MFR-.
Old 01-07-2011, 6:04 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Wales.
Posts: 5,475
Default

i think the only way no MOT affects insurance is if at the time your MOT ran out and you didnt have it done and continued to drive it someone hit you or you hit someone the pay out you recieve for the insurance in the event of a write off would mean a lesser offer because of lack of MOT.
i know i make spelling mistakes and i prefer to just type and post and get on with life, i know there are people who prefer all the crossed T's and dotted I's but we cant have everything in life pur..fect. i have a condition i hate to spell it but i bet you can guess it.
atrixblue.-MFR-. is offline
Report Post
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
 
 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 Forum Jump  

Contact Us - MoneySavingExpert.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 2:55 AM.

 Forum Jump  

Free MoneySaving Email

Top deals: Week of 17 September 2014

Get all this & more in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email full of guides, vouchers and Deals

GET THIS FREE WEEKLY EMAIL Full of deals, guides & it's spam free

Latest News & Blogs

Martin's Twitter Feed

profile

Cheap Travel Money

Find the best online rate for holiday cash with MSE's TravelMoneyMax.

Find the best online rate for your holiday cash with MoneySavingExpert's TravelMoneyMax.

TuneChecker Top Albums

  • THE SCRIPTNO SOUND WITHOUT SILENCE
  • SAM SMITHIN THE LONELY HOUR (DELUXE EDITION)
  • VARIOUS ARTISTSKEEP CALM & CHILLOUT

MSE's Twitter Feed

profile
Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.
We use Skimlinks and other affiliated links in some of our boards, for some of our users.