help, my mot is overdue

jeannieblue

And......

It is illegal to drive without MOT - so the 'cops' will get you anyway!

Where's Dolly??

Inactive

jeannieblue wrote: »

And......

It is illegal to drive without MOT - so the 'cops' will get you anyway!

No it isn't..

BillScarab

jeannieblue wrote: »

And......

It is illegal to drive without MOT - so the 'cops' will get you anyway!

Where's Dolly??

Not necessarily illegal and not that likely they will.

I can only talk from personal experience but I've had an accident whilst having no MOT and the insurance company paid up without any quibbles at all. They just told me to ensure I got it MOT'd ASAP.

They didn't inform the police either.

ALlt he people who think it is a requirement of your insurance to have a valid MOT can you please post the relevant statement from yoru insurance policy ot prove it? Although personally I'm with raskazz on this.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

I thought the “utmost good faith” concept had been held to be anything which might cause an insurer to decline or impose different terms on a policy and applies even if the insurer does specifically ask about something.

This would be true if we were talking 'classical' utmost good faith in the 1900's, however the principle is modified for consumer contracts by the FOS's stance on non-disclosure, found here:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

As you can see, the first stage of the FOS's decision process is to assess whether the insurer asked clear questions about the matter under dispute ("In order for non-disclosure to occur, the insurer must show that it asked clear questions"). So if they don't ask a question regarding the MOT status of the car, they can't then later attempt to rely on a lack of MOT as grounds for arguing non-disclosure.

cyclonebri1

Lifes gets a lot simpler if you just MOT the car on time


Can't see if how driving a car not having an MOT cert, if the car is 3 years old, can be anything other than illegal?

Inactive

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Can't see if how driving a car not having an MOT cert, if the car is 3 years old, can be anything other than illegal?

My point exactly.. :T

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

This would be true if we were talking 'classical' utmost good faith in the 1900's, however the principle is modified for consumer contracts by the FOS's stance on non-disclosure, found here:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

As you can see, the first stage of the FOS's decision process is to assess whether the insurer asked clear questions about the matter under dispute ("In order for non-disclosure to occur, the insurer must show that it asked clear questions"). So if they don't ask a question regarding the MOT status of the car, they can't then later attempt to rely on a lack of MOT as grounds for arguing non-disclosure.

As I said, what we need is a high enough value test case as I’d be interested to see what the law lords have to say about the concept of the FOS guidelines being able to modify (and take precedence over?) the common law

Wig

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Lifes gets a lot simpler if you just MOT the car on time

But we are aiming to make life remain simple for those who forget to renew their MOT, so they are reassured that they don't have to worry about anything more than a theoretical fine.

Can't see if how driving a car not having an MOT cert, if the car is 3 years old, can be anything other than illegal?

You just mentioned one exemption which allows for a car to be driven without MOT, the other is if it is being driven to an MOT appointment, another would be if the vehicle itself was exempt. All these things mean that it is not always illegal.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

As I said, what we need is a high enough value test case as I’d be interested to see what the law lords have to say about the concept of the FOS guidelines being able to modify (and take precedence over?) the common law

For insurers selling to consmers membership of the FOS is compulsory under the Financial Services and Markets Act, and as decisions made by the FOS are binding on the insurer, up to a specified limit, the FOS always take precedence over common law as far as insurers are concerned.

jeannieblue

Stop ganging up on me...........

You have an MOT = legal

You don't have an MOT = legal .............. how come??

If that is the case then why do we bother to get one done?

No MOT = not legal - in my book, but someone will know better.

If you don't have an MOT and are still legal (apart from driving to test centre) doesn't that make a whole farce of it all??