My friends car had no MOT

x_raphael_xx

Conor wrote: »

INSURANCE ISN'T INVALID !!!!!!...

Alright calm down. F*ing hell!
So I was wrong, so sue me I'm human!! Maybe a polite 'you're not right' would have been better? Certainly more polite.

I know you need an MOT to get your tax, and I was sure the insurance checked your records when you signed up.

Keith

hewhoisnotintheknow wrote: »

my insurance states

make sure the Car is roadworthy including that it has, if required, a valid MOT certificate and complies with the Road Traffic Acts (e.g. has legally correct tyres, lights, brakes, windows etc…);

Which insurer is that?

raskazz

MrsTine wrote: »

It CAN invalidate the insurance and the police can prosecute you for MOT non-compliance if caught. And no it doesn't always invalidate the insurance but that is down to the individual insurance policies...

No, it's an urban myth that a lack of MOT invalidates a motor insurance policy. Just to declare my expertise before explaining how things actually are, I'm a motor insurance underwriter of over 5 years experience.

Most policies have a condition that the policyholder takes reasonable steps to maintain the car in a roadworthy condition. What you must realise is that an MOT only confirms that the car was roadworthy on the day of the MOT test - a car could have no valid MOT but be roadworthy, or indeed have a valid MOT but be unroadworthy.

Under FSA regulation (The Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook, rule 8.1.2 to be precise) an insurer can only repudiate a claim from a consumer on grounds of breach of warranty or condition if the breach actually caused or contributed to the loss (unless there is an element of fraud). Thus an insurer can only reject a claim on the grounds of a car being unroadworthy if that unroadworthiness actually caused or contributed to the accident or loss. To do that they would have to prove (i) that the car was unroadworthy and (ii) that the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the accident or loss. A lack of MOT will not help them prove this either way, for the reasons given previously.

The only thing to also be aware of is that a lack of MOT could affect the insurer's assessment of the value of your car if it is written off.

Quentin

hewhoisnotintheknow wrote: »

my insurance states

make sure the Car is roadworthy including that it has, if required, a valid MOT certificate and complies with the Road Traffic Acts (e.g. has legally correct tyres, lights, brakes, windows etc…);

That won't be part of your insurance ts + cs, but some good general advice to policyholders they have written.

Wig

hewhoisnotintheknow wrote: »

If you do drive a vehicle without a valid MOT it will usually invalidate your insurance, and if you have an accident or are stopped by the police, you will be liable to face prosecution for MOT non-compliance. The only time you may drive a car without a valid MOT is if you are driving to a pre-arranged test appointment or to a garage that will carry out repairs that are required for your vehicle to pass the MOT test.

i think

To qualify that statement you would have to show evidence of all the car insurance company policies in the UK, then count the number that require MOT, and the number that do not, and THEN show that more require it than do not. Or alternatively find out how many cars are insured by each company, and show that more cars are insured by companies who require it than those that do not require it.

my insurance states

make sure the Car is roadworthy including that it has, if required, a valid MOT certificate and complies with the Road Traffic Acts (e.g. has legally correct tyres, lights, brakes, windows etc

Ok you have one of the *few* that do state it. In my experience most do not state that. I also would have to prove I am right by the same methods, but I can at least say that I have read a lot of different policies looking at this issue, can you say the same?

One insurer I found that said it was Admiral.

Even though your insurer says that, you could still appeal to the ombudsman as the term being unreasonable, and you might very well win your appeal.

Quentin

Wig wrote: »

One insurer I found that said it was Admiral.

No. Admiral are like all the rest.

They refer only to the need for the car being "roadworthy"

Wig

Quentin wrote: »

No. Admiral are like all the rest.

They refer only to the need for the car being "roadworthy"

You're right, I wonder which one it was then :think: I probably thought it was Admiral because I don't like them

Quentin

They aren't a very likeable organisation!

They do use having no MOT as an excuse to not take on a case under their legal cover - maybe that's what you have come across?

GordyR

Hi guys,

I im in a similar predicament. Here is my story...

Back in July I drove my car to my brothers to visit him. My mother who was also there visiting at the time noticed that my road tax had just gone out of date. Rather than risk a fine she drove me back home (around 20 miles away). Once at home I logged on to the DVLA website and tried to renew my tax. Upon attempting this I was told that my MOT had also just expired. Typical!

Therefore without a valid MOT I could not renew my tax. I decided to declare the vehical SORN and await my next payday (I was pretty skint that month due to a holiday and some serious dental work)

Pay day came around and I booked in my MOT for Wednesday afternoon at 2pm. On Monday afternoon I got the train down to my brothers, slept there overnight and drove the car directly to the MOT test centre hoping that I could leave it there off the public road for a day before they do the MOT test. This sounds stupid I know, but the MOT test centre is quite literally yards from my house and I figured if they say no I could just drive it those few yards home without too much of an issue. Also I had a work related issue which had come up since booking the MOT which would require my prescence Wednesday afternoon. Hence me driving the car back a day early. (I hope this paragraph makes some sense)

Unfortunately on my way to the MOT test centre (at 5am, again due to having to be at work by 7am) a rabbit ran out in front of me causing me to brake hard and swerve. I hit a traffic island which sent me into a spin. Thankfully there were no other cars involved and I was not injured. THe damage however looks to be quite severe as my front drivers side wheel actually became detached! The whole drivers wing is demolished. Despite the cars value being around £18,000 this leads me to believe it could be a write-off.

Where do you guys think I stand? Will the insurance company pay up? Should I declare straight away about the MOT/SORN issue or should I wait until they bring it up, if they do at all?

Any advice would be very much appreciated. I am sick with worry as I still have two years of finance to pay!


EDIT: I am with Kwik-fit insurance. There seems to be no mention of having to have an MOT certificate in the policy wording, however it does make some mention if the vehicle is a write-off. The exact wording for the 'write-off' section is as follows:


Total loss (write off)

If your insurer decides to pay you the market value of your vehicle, you must send them all vehicle keys, the certificate of motor insurance, the vehicle registration document and (if this applies) the Department for Transport test certificate (MOT) before they will pay your claim. They may move your vehicle somewhere safe.

It's the part in brackets, the 'if this applies' bit that gives me hope. What do you guys think?

C_Ronaldo

GordyR

id come clean re the MOT issue