no tax means insurance is void?

raskazz

dacouch wrote: »

If you do a search of MSE you will find a few people whose MOTs had expired and they were with the one of the small minority (Cheap and Cheerful) Insurers that include a note that the car has to have a current MOT even though the Ombudsman will through out this exclusion. If you find them you will see the Insurers backed down following the MSE members seeking advice on MSE and their claims were paid, some of them were on a reduced valuation for a written off car as a car without an MOT is worth less.

Exactly. Here's my favourite thread on the topic because the insurer involved was Quinn and they had to back down:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1887019

As for this:

Frankzp wrote: »

Go to the website=== nopenaltypoints.co.uk/legal-implications-avoiding-car-tax-insurance.html

The information on that page is incorrect and poorly researched. Because I'm a pedant and I loathe people giving out poor information masquerading as fact I'm going to point out some of the inaccuracies.

For example:

"If you are going to take a vehicle out on a public road then the law states that you MUST have motor insurance."

No it doesn't. Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act It states that you must not use or cause or permit the use of a motor vehicle on a road (defined as any road or highway to which the public has access or any other public place) unless there is inforce in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person, a policy of insurance or security in respect of third party liabilities which complies with the requirements of Part VI of the Act. Alternatively, as per section 144 of the Act, a person can deposit £500k with the Supreme Court to be expemt from the requirements of section 143.

"Most importantly, in most cases you will be covered for legal costs and medical costs if a serious accident occurs for which you are at fault"

Medical costs for accidents in which the policyholder is at fault are generally nominal under motor insurance policies - maybe £500. To not include this caveat is misleading.

"If you are involved in an accident is not your fault but don't have motor insurance, then you can't claim and may well be sued by the driver, any of their passengers, and potentially the insurance company for the other party."

Absolute nonsense. The only way that the lack of insurance could affect your claim against the negligent party is if you are claiming for loss of use - as per the case of Smyly Agheampong v Allied Manufacturing (London) Ltd.

"A lot of people don’t realise that if they ‘forget’ to renew their road tax when it runs out – or don’t purchase it at all – then their car insurance is null and void. If they are involved in an accident while untaxed, then they will essentially be uninsured and will be subject to all the consequences as described above. Even if they have been paying their car insurance, it won’t make any difference – you’re still guilty of committing a criminal offence."

Rubbish. Firstly, if the tax ran out during the term of the policy it could never be null and void. Secondly, hardly any insurers use policy terms which stipulate that the insured vehicle must have valid road tax. Thirdly, even if there is a term to that effect, it would be unenforceable due to the FSA's Insurance Conduct of Business rules - which state that an insurer cannot reject a claim on the grounds of breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the breach caused or contributed to the loss. Clearly, lack of road tax will never in itself cause or contribute to an accident.