Help please

Dick_Van_Dyke

So your car was being ran without an MOT for 5 months......
A bit different to the normal example of a few days.

debred86

and your insurance wont be valid if you dont have an mot

debred86

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

e) make sure the vehicle is kept in a roadworthy condition and, if necessary, has a valid MOT certificate.

Therefore on this policy i beleive it means you need it to have an MOT to make the insurance valid!!

thescouselander

debred86 wrote: »

Therefore on this policy i beleive it means you need it to have an MOT to make the insurance valid!!

!!!!!!! How many times to we have to go over this before the thicko's get it into their heads:

dacouch wrote: »

Your wrong.

Not having an MOT does not invalidate your Insurance as other posters have noted. The abscence of a current MOT may reduce the amount you receive for a written off car as they are worth less.

The Insurers can only deny a claim if they have an express clause about the vehicle being roadworthy AND the unroadworthyness caused or substantially cased the incident.

A handbrake that is a bit iffy would in most cases not be deemed by the Ombudsman as being unroadworthy.

Here are the Ombudsman's rules on the matter.

"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#13

Dick_Van_Dyke

thescouselander wrote: »

!!!!!!! How many times to we have to go over this before the thicko's get it into their heads:

The only comment I would add though is the ombudsman is referring to the roadworthiness aspect when insurers claim no MOT means it isnt roadworthy.

In this case the MOT is specifically mentioned as required.

May make a difference. Not sure.

Regardless 5 months down the line there is going to be an argument the vehicle may not have been roadworthy.

neilmcl

thescouselander wrote: »

!!!!!!! How many times to we have to go over this before the thicko's get it into their heads:

Whilst totally agree with the advice posted by Dacouch, I think the other poster was trying to point out that this particularly insurance co. has certain requirements specified in their T&Cs which the OP obviously agreed and failed to live up to thus potentially allowing the insurance co. to back out of any liability to cover the claim. Not only did the OP fail to have a valid MOT but it could also be argued that they failed to "take all reasonable steps to prevent accidents, injuries,loss or damage" by leaving the handbrake off. If, for example, the OP had left the keys in the ignition and it was stolen would the insurance co pay out then, possibly not, and that's all part of the same general exceptions that was posted earlier.

thescouselander

neilmcl wrote: »

Whilst totally agree with the advice posted by Dacouch, I think the other poster was trying to point out that this particularly insurance co. has certain requirements specified in their T&Cs which the OP obviously agreed and failed to live up to thus potentially allowing the insurance co. to back out of any liability to cover the claim. Not only did the OP fail to have a valid MOT but it could also be argued that they failed to "take all reasonable steps to prevent accidents, injuries,loss or damage" by leaving the handbrake off.

No this is not the case. The insurance industry is regulated and an insurer cannot just put any old Ts & Cs in their policy. If a condition is deemed to be unfair by the regulator the insurer will be made to pay up. They can put what they like about MOTs but in most cases the abcense of an MOT will not be sufficient grounds to withdraw cover.

This is one area where a regulator actually provides decent protection for consumers.

Its a funny coincidence but someone in work was just telling me they did almost exactly the same thing at the weekend (except they had a newer car so no MOT needed) - the insurance have said they will pay out, no questions.

neilmcl

What about the other point about not taking all reasonable steps to prevent an accidents/damage?

Dick_Van_Dyke

thescouselander wrote: »

No this is not the case. The insurance industry is regulated and an insurer cannot just put any old Ts & Cs in their policy. If a condition is deemed to be unfair by the regulator the insurer will be made to pay up. They can put what they like about MOTs but in most cases the abcense of an MOT will not be sufficient grounds to withdraw cover.

This is one area where a regulator actually provides decent protection for consumers.

Its a funny coincidence but someone in work was just telling me they did almost exactly the same thing at the weekend (except they had a newer car so no MOT needed) - the insurance have said they will pay out, no questions.

There is nothing saying this term is unfair though.
What the ombudsman is referring to is the fact insurers were stating cars were not meeting the roadworthy term due to a lack of an MOT pointing out it didnt need an MOT to be roadworthy.

I wonder if the specific requirement for an MOT as a term would be deemed unfair however.

thescouselander

neilmcl wrote: »

What about the other point about not taking all reasonable steps to prevent an accidents/damage?

Accidents happen - that's what insurance of for.

Its like if you accidently drive into your gatepost, the insurance would pay out - they wouldn't argue it's reasonable that you should have driven between the gateposts because it was an accident that was unintentional.