School boy error - no mot

Quentin

foggytown wrote: »

Thank you for the (largely useless) link.

If you read the case history you will see a policyholder told his claim was being rejected as he had no MOT. (His policy stated it was a condition that he did have one).

The policyholder was advised to appeal as the condition was unenforceable.

Despite many coming into the thread, insisting the condition meant everything we were able to persuade the OP to go back to his insurer (1st Central) and use the advice given.

Eventually he did, received his cheque and lived happily ever after!

All covered here:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#13

Which overides anything in the policy regarding having to have an MOT.

dacouch

foggytown wrote: »

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.

Is the FSA good enough for you ?

"A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:

(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure protection contract)"

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1

I'm surprised with your claims background you were not aware of the ICOB rules especially as they were pointed out to you in a previous MSE thread when you stated as fact that failure to abide by a security warranty / condition on a home insurance was enough to through out a claim that was not connected to the security.

raskazz

foggytown wrote: »

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.

You clearly haven't read the thread otherwise you would have noticed a link to the FSA's own ICOBS regulations which dacouch kindly mentioned above.

foggytown

Quentin wrote: »

If you read the case history you will see a policyholder told his claim was being rejected as he had no MOT. (His policy stated it was a condition that he did have one).

The policyholder was advised to appeal as the condition was unenforceable.

Despite many coming into the thread, insisting the condition meant everything we were able to persuade the OP to go back to his insurer (1st Central) and use the advice given.

Eventually he did, received his cheque and lived happily ever after!

So one insurer (already known for its inability to understand insurance) changes its mind and that's a precedent?

All covered here:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#13

Which overides anything in the policy regarding having to have an MOT.

"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."

It surprises me that you can't differentiate between a policy requirement that you maintain your car in a roadworthy state and a requirement that it has MOT and tax. Two related, but very different, things.

ILW

Quentin wrote: »

Ignore this.

Irrespective of what your policy says, not having an MOT does NOT invalidate your insurance.

It will still be valid for 3rd party claims but probably not for claims by the insured.

dacouch

ILW wrote: »

It will still be valid for 3rd party claims but probably not for claims by the insured.

Try reading the thread and links

kns_2

Just phone them and ask but i think it will be invalid as insurance companies will do anything to get out of a claim.
Also if the policy would not be invalid without an MOT don't you think we would all drive round without an MOT.

raskazz

kns wrote: »

Just phone them and ask but i think it will be invalid as insurance companies will do anything to get out of a claim.

This is nonsense. Please read the thread and links.