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

dacouch

EdGasket wrote: »

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.

The website you are quoting from is factually incorrect. No doubt you could also find us a website that states not having road tax invalidates and accident which is equally rubbish. Or that accidents on private land are not covered by Insurance

Here is a passage from the Insurance Ombudsmans Website

"13. roadworthiness Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.
In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value".


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

There are very very few Insurers that stipulate the car must have a valid MOT, they all contain a requirement that the vehicle must be in a roadworthy condition. However the Ombudsmans guidance as above over rules any policy wording.

dacouch

Ginnersinner, have a read of the link I have posted, there are very few Insurers that will try and exclude cover for your own damage without a valid MOT and even if they do the Ombudsman will normally overule. Also even if its in an unroadworthy condition the Insurers are still liable for the own damage unless the damage was caused (Or substantially contrributed to) by the un roadworthiness of the vehicle.

Nice post on the RTA

Inactive

EdGasket wrote: »

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.

Because someone sets up a website, it doesn't make everything written by the site owner correct.
:rolleyes:

raskazz

ginnersinner wrote: »

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)



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.

Good post, but it's worth mentioning that where there is no MOT, it's not as black and white as the insured only having RTA cover. Either:

1) The car was roadworthy, in which case own damage and third party costs will be covered, subject to a potential reduction in any total loss settlement due to the absence of an MOT cert.

2) The car was unroadworthy, but this did not cause or contribute to the loss, in which case claims are settled as in case 1).

3) The car was unroadworthy and this caused or contributed to the loss - then own damage is not covered; the insurer may have a liability under the Road Traffic Act but will deal on the basis of consent and indemnity (the policyholder commits to repay the insurer the costs) or on the basis of recovery of costs from the policyholder by legal action.

Any exclusion that refers to an MOT certificate being required is unenforceable due to the rules in dacouch's post above. All that matters is roadworthiness, which the presence or absence of an MOT certificate has no bearing on (except at the specific time of the test).

ginnersinner

All good, and I know contract and civil arguments about T&Cs are a right old minefield. I just think people were getting confused about 'invalidated' insurance, and the difference between it being 'invalid' for the purposes of a prosecution under the Road Traffic Act (almost impossible for a company to do as above) and 'invalid' in terms of wether the company would pay you out.

EdGasket

Seems like its a completely grey area and no wonder lawyers make so much money ! I still say with no MoT you may only legally drive to a pre-arranged MoT; any other use is illegal. Why would an insurance company cover you to do something illegal? e.g. Do you see insurance available to cover your burglaries?
I think with no MoT you are rather at the mercy of the insurance company; but good luck. I will follow this thread with interest to see how it unfolds.

ellionic

Just got off the phone to quinn insurance we were sure our car MOT ran out on 31st but it ran out on 21st accident happened 26th they will cover us for the other persons damage but not for our own.

EdGasket

Sorry to hear you won't get cover for your own car but thanks for letting us know the outcome; so many posters just leave the thread hanging and we never get the end of the story.

vaio

ellionic wrote: »

Just got off the phone to quinn insurance we were sure our car MOT ran out on 31st but it ran out on 21st accident happened 26th they will cover us for the other persons damage but not for our own.

Refer them to the FSO website and particularly the bit repeated in post #63 above.

Unless there is an allegation that the car was un-roadworthy AND that un-roadworthyness contributed to the accident then them paying for the damage to your car is not optional.

Quentin

The problem with Quinn is that they do stipulate a MOT must be in place in their policy.