Genuinely forgot to renew MOT & car involved in accident. Help!

raskazz

spangles30 wrote: »

One of the things I feared most after doing internet 'research' is that many people claimed that not having an MOT invalidated the insurance.

As you have found with your own insurer's comments, this is basically an urban myth.

EdGasket

A car that requires an MoT but does not have one cannot legally be on the road. Period. I think the insurers would be within their right to refuse to pay out.

Inactive

EdGasket wrote: »

A car that requires an MoT but does not have one cannot legally be on the road. Period. I think the insurers would be within their right to refuse to pay out.

You obviously failed to read this thread, or failed to comprehend what had been stated.

EdGasket

Sorry, but you may only drive a car without an MoT to a pre-arranged MOT Test. The car without the MoT should not have been on the road and then the other car wouldn't have hit it; so the car that ran into the one with no MoT can claim compensation off the owner of the car with no MoT as it shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. This is true even if the car with no MoT is only parked on the road.
No MoT = invalid insurance; hence owner of illegally driven car must pay out of their own pocket. Harsh but true !

EdGasket

Ah here we go, see:
http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/NoMOTAndThePenalties.html

...What Happens if I Drive my Car Without an MOT?
If you do drive a vehicle without a valid MOT it will usually invalidate your insurance

Q.E.D.

headoutofsand

EdGasket wrote: »

Sorry, but you may only drive a car without an MoT to a pre-arranged MOT Test. The car without the MoT should not have been on the road and then the other car wouldn't have hit it; so the car that ran into the one with no MoT can claim compensation off the owner of the car with no MoT as it shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. This is true even if the car with no MoT is only parked on the road.
No MoT = invalid insurance; hence owner of illegally driven car must pay out of their own pocket. Harsh but true !

Correct. the car is not legal, the police will have a field day if they want to. There really is no loophole for this, a car on the puhlic highway must be road worthy, which makes perfect sense. The insurance will be void and the police are seriously cracking down on this sort of offence ANPR. There is no escape as far as I can tell.

pompeyrich

headoutofsand wrote: »

Correct. the car is not legal, the police will have a field day if they want to. There really is no loophole for this, a car on the puhlic highway must be road worthy, which makes perfect sense. The insurance will be void and the police are seriously cracking down on this sort of offence ANPR. There is no escape as far as I can tell.

So why, when I was stopped with no MOT did the police not charge me with no insurance? It is a myth that no MOT invalidates insurance, it can reduce the amount the insurance company will pay out for your own car but they are obliged to settle 3rd party claims in full.

gordikin

Can anyone give an official legal website that says a car without an MOT is not insured! Thought not!

ellionic

gordikin wrote: »

Can anyone give an official legal website that says a car without an MOT is not insured! Thought not!

I will let you all know tomorrow i am in same boat and someone from my insurance is coming to see me tomorrow.

ginnersinner

Right. Settle Down!!!

You're all getting confused between the provision of the LEGAL MINIMUM of insurance as required by sec 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which CANNOT be invalidated (see below) by a vehicle having no MOT, (criminal law) and the likelihood that an insurance company won't pay out for YOUR damage if you have no MOT (civil contract law)

148. —(1) Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—
(a) the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or
(b) the operation of the security,
(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection(2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.

(2) Those matters are—
(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b) the condition of the vehicle,
(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the 1971 c. 10.Vehicles(Excise) Act 1971.

This basically means that an insurance company cannot remove the minimum cover required by law for non-compliance with certain conditions within the policy. If you have no MOT, you're not guilty of having no insurance.

HOWEVER, you'll only have third party cover, which means that if you have an accident which is your fault, the insurance company is only liable for the damage to the other party (even if you've paid for fully comp).

There are some schools of thought which say that s148 is even tighter than that, and that the insurance company could sue you for reimbursement of the costs of the third party's damage, but in any case, they can't invalidate the s143 cover. Pretty much the only offence which will result in a conviction for no insurance when you actually have a policy is driving whilst disqualified.