School boy error - no mot

Obukit

foggytown wrote: »

I have never understood this particular conundrum. By definition, a car without an MOT can not be driven on the road and shouldn't BE on the road. It is illegal for it to be. So why would insurers be quite happy to insure an illegal vehicle, which (among other reasons) may not have an MOT because it failed the MOT and is unsafe. I'd love to hear a recording of the conversation that starts like this, "Hi! I'm insured with you and my policy expires six months from now. My MOT is due next week. I don't think I'll bother getting it done. Any objections?"

Most insurers stipulate that your car must be roadworthy. Having an MOT and being roadworthy are two totally different things - you could get an MOT certificate yesterday then have oil leak all over your brakes and swap your tyres for bald ones - your car is still MOTed but if you couldn't brake and crashed, your insurance would be invalid.

axomoxia

foggytown wrote: »

I have never understood this particular conundrum. By definition, a car without an MOT can not be driven on the road and shouldn't BE on the road. It is illegal for it to be. So why would insurers be quite happy to insure an illegal vehicle, which (among other reasons) may not have an MOT because it failed the MOT and is unsafe. I'd love to hear a recording of the conversation that starts like this, "Hi! I'm insured with you and my policy expires six months from now. My MOT is due next week. I don't think I'll bother getting it done. Any objections?"

You can quite legally drive an MOT-less vehicle to and from a MOT test station and I believe also for the purposes of repairing said vehicle. You should also note that an MOT or lack of does not guarantee road-worthiness or otherwise. I've noticed that all my insurance polices refer to roadworthiness of vehicle, not as to weather an valid MOT certificate is in place.

vaio

also worth noting that a car sans MOT is obviously worth less than one with so would further reduce the payout you'd get which adds even more weight to the don't claim argument (not that any more is needed)

vaio

yep, and even if you are lucky enough to have an insurance company that does have the MOT requirement it doesn't matter because the FOS will (and have) ruled such terms are unenforceable

paddedjohn

if your car is still drivable and the lights can be secured then it might be worth putting it through an mot test, when you go to produce your docs with your 7 day ticket they may overlook the fact it wasnt mot'd at the time of the incident.
before people jump in and say no chance, it happened to me a couple of years ago and i got away with it. also if the insurance do make an offer on your car it will be worth more.

Sandy_Lampert

guide me..Could a slight twist in the swingarm be compensated for that way? (If it was knocked sideways a couple of mm?)

I have paid 2k for it personally. What's the milage on it?

foggytown

vaio wrote: »

yep, and even if you are lucky enough to have an insurance company that does have the MOT requirement it doesn't matter because the FOS will (and have) ruled such terms are unenforceable

Well, here's what my policy (with LV) says.

SECTION 11 - GENERAL CONDITIONS
2. CARE OF YOUR CAR
You or any person in charge of your car must take reasonable


precautions to:

• maintain your car in an efficient and roadworthy condition
• protect your car from damage or loss

You must have a valid:

• Department for Transport Test Certificate (MOT) for your car if one is needed by law; and
• Vehicle tax disc unless your car has been declared off the road in accordance with the statutory off road notification (SORN)

You must give us reasonable access to examine your car and
send us evidence of a valid MOT and vehicle tax disc that we ask
to see.

Now, I'd appreciate seeing your evidence that the FOS thinks this requirement is unenforceable.

Quentin

Why do you want to "see" the evidence? Irrespective of what it says in your policy, you do not have to have a current MOT!

Why prolong the myth?

It has been established that condition is unenforceable, and LV know it. Gullibles (like you it seems) just accept it should they end up in a situation when they cannot supply a MOT.

Case history for you to read through:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2573777

foggytown

Quentin wrote: »

Why do you want to "see" the evidence? Irrespective of what it says in your policy, you do not have to have a current MOT!

Why prolong the myth?

It has been established that condition is unenforceable, and LV know it. Gullibles (like you it seems) just accept it should they end up in a situation when they cannot supply a MOT.

Case history for you to read through:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2573777

Thank you for the (largely useless) link. Not one post in there contains any OFFICIAL on-point statement. It's all opinions from people (like you) who like to use the words "obviously" and "myth" etc. Nothing regarding the attitude of the FOS towards policies which actually stipulate the existence of a current MOT.

I'll try it again. Show me any FOS document which has said that the MOT conddition in a policy is invalid or unenforceable. If you can't reinforce your position, don't assume the position! Your act isn't that strong.

mikey72

The problem is in the wording.


You must have a valid:

• Department for Transport Test Certificate (MOT) for your car if one is needed by law; and
• Vehicle tax disc unless your car has been declared off the road in accordance with the statutory off road notification (SORN)

Now, I do have a car which needs an MOT by law and is not off road and SORNed.

However, I am allowed, and just did, drive it to the MOT station without MOT or tax, and when it passed, I drove it back again, without tax.

It I had an accident I, and the FOS, would expect the insurance to be valid, as I am driving legally.
As the wording is a blanket statement, it's unfair, which renders it unenforcable as it's written.