Accident - MOT expired - advice please!

olly300

newfoundglory wrote: »

And by the same, a car with an MOT may not be roadworthy.

Years ago one of my colleagues was pulled over by the police as they decided his car was not road worthy. He had a valid MOT.

He ended up being fined and having to scrap his car.

newfoundglory

AFAIK... an MOT is only "valid" on the day it was issued... even though it "lasts" for a year?

olly300

The MOT certificate confirms that at the time of the test, without dismantling it, the vehicle met the minimum acceptable environmental and road safety standards required by law. It doesn’t mean that the vehicle is roadworthy for the length of time the certificate is valid. The MOT certificate is also no guarantee of the general mechanical condition of your vehicle. The test doesn’t cover the condition of the engine, clutch or gearbox.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022109

newfoundglory

Really worth the paper its written on, then :rotfl:

Jeez, we're such a joke in the UK.

Cool_Mint

vaio wrote: »

Yep, you'll be covered on both although if yours is a total loss you might get a slightly reduced payout to reflect the fact that a car without an MOT is worth less than one with.

All assumes that the car is roadworthy or if it’s not then the unroadworthyness didn’t cause or contribute to the accident

You will get a HUGELY reduced payout for your car. I made the same mistake with a motorcycle and the bike wasn't even on the road at the time, it was parked.

vaio

Not sure about HUGELY reduced payout, the reduction will need to reflect the actual reduced value and be justifiable.

On a perfectly maintained 38 month old car I'd argue the reduction in value is not much (if anything) more than the cost of the test so £50

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Not sure about HUGELY reduced payout, the reduction will need to reflect the actual reduced value and be justifiable.

On a perfectly maintained 38 month old car I'd argue the reduction in value is not much (if anything) more than the cost of the test so £50

Insurers tend to go by the "Trade" value when valuing a car without an MOT.

sarriep

I'm pretty sure it won't be written off - just some damage to the bumper and bonnet so the lack of MOT shouldn't affect what the insurers pay out should it?

And it is an oversight - we are fully taxed and insured and have been, with 2 cars, for nearly 15 years now. This is the ONE time (and yes - it HAD to be the time I had a bump!) that I've not had a valid MOT for my (or my husband's) car.

Lesson learnt.

sarriep

Do you think the insurance company will check for a valid MOT as a matter of course?

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

Insurers tend to go by the "Trade" value when valuing a car without an MOT.

Probably not bad way to do it generally but might be hard to justify on a 38 month old perfectly maintained car