Driving without MOT?

raskazz

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Section 148 (2)(b) RTA 1988 states that an insurer cannot refuse to deal with any third party claims where a policy of insurance has been issued regardless of the condition of the vehicle.

Yes it does but that is not the crux of the MOT/insurance matter. Clearly where such a third party claim was paid - in the absence of other rules - an insurer could recover its costs from the policyholder if they were in breach of a contract term requiring the vehicle to hold a valid MOT.

The key reason that an insurer cannot repuidate any part of a claim purely due to the absence of an MOT cert is the FSA ICOBS rule which states that (unless fraud is involved) an insurer cannot refuse a claim on grounds of breach of warranty or condition where the circumstances of the claim are not connected with the breach.

raskazz

Hammyman wrote: »

IS NOT THE CORRECT ANSWER.

It depends on what your policy states. If it states that a car requires a MOT other than being driven to and from a pre-booked test they would pay out to a third party even if it invalidates it but they would pursue you for the money they paid out.

It is totally the correct answer. Please search for the hundreds of threads which have covered this topic before. Like this one:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=24633353&postcount=88

Any term which purports to exclude cover purely due to lack of current MOT is unenforceable by the insurer.

Hammyman

raskazz wrote: »

It is totally the correct answer. Please search for the hundreds of threads which have covered this topic before. Like this one:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=24633353&postcount=88

Any term which purports to exclude cover purely due to lack of current MOT is unenforceable by the insurer.

Please quote me the law which says they can't. I am not interested in hearsay and "opinion".

jim22

Hypothetically, if you have been driving around, say for 5 months without an MOT, then pass one, will they backdate it or start the certificate on that date. If there is a gap and no sorn, will vosa go after you?

mikey72

They won't backdate it, and no-one will care.
(And you'll still be insured all the way through as well)

raskazz

Hammyman wrote: »

Please quote me the law which says they can't. I am not interested in hearsay and "opinion".

Bit of an odd reply - if you're not interested in hearsay or opinion then why did you yourself post something, which was quite a clear and robust reply, which was clearly hearsay/opinion itself?!

If you read the link I posted, the thread contains a detailed explanation of why the insurer could not enforce the contract term.

To make it clear for you though:

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

The FSA's ICOBS rule 8.1.2R states:

"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"

An MOT certificate proves nothing other than the vehicle met certain standards at the date and time of the test. Thus a vehicle can be unroadworthy but with a current MOT or indeed roadworthy but without a current MOT.

Thus not having a current MOT can never in itself cause or contribute to a claim; and so a breach of warranty or condition requiring a current MOT cannot be used by an insurer to repudiate an otherwise valid claim.

The insurer can of course decline a claim if a vehicle was unroadworthy, but as per the same FSA rule, they would have to prove that:

(i) the vehicle was unroadworthy at the time of the incident, and
(ii) that the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the claim

And again, roadworthiness is independent of whether the vehicle holds a current MOT.

vaio

Raskazz (or any other insurance insiders)......

Is there an accepted definition of “warranty” & “condition”?

What sort of thing do they cover and how do they differ?

vaio

shameless bump

raskazz

"Warranty" and "condition" are legal terms in contract law.

I don't think that there are any simple ways to accurately define the two - indeed, an "innominate" term is a contract term which cannot be categorically identified as a condition or a warranty.

I think the easiest way to describe the general difference between the two is that a breach of condition goes to the heart of the contract whereas a contract can survive a breach of warranty.

For example, a motor insurance policy may warrant that the insured vehicle is kept in a locked garage overnight. If the car is left on the road one night and is vandalised, that damage will not be covered but the contract as a whole can survive the breach and continue (unless, for example, the insured never had a garage in the first place, but then you are moving into issues of breaches of utmost good faith rather than breaches of warranty or condition).

poppasmurf_bewdley

One problem with driving without an MOT is that you will be 'pinged' by ANPR devices and pulled by the police, who may well find other things wrong, ie. worn tyres, drugs in car, drunken driver, bodies in boot (I watch Road Wars, etc).

Better not to chance it.