MOT is late so i'm late applying for car tax..help!

Wig

spiro wrote: »

Wig/paddedjohn - does such a precident exist? If not then the T&Cs are the T&Cs.

Insurers have to abide by Ombudsaman rulings. Ombudsman has ruled on this and they are not allowed to withdraw cover for this reason alone. If they do, you just refer the matter free of charge to the ombudsman.

Flyboy152

spiro wrote: »

If they put it in their T&Cs and refused to pay I an guessing you would have to go to court to prove the terms were unreasonable unless a precident has already been set.

Wig/paddedjohn - does such a precident exist? If not then the T&Cs are the T&Cs.

How many times does this have to be said on this forum?

Terms and conditions do not supersede the law.



Sorry for shouting, but it needed to be said.

spiro

Flyboy152 wrote: »

How many times does this have to be said on this forum?

Terms and conditions do not supersede the law.



Sorry for shouting, but it needed to be said.

That does not answer my question - has this been tested in court or documented in a law? Please provide details of the law that these T&Cs supercede.

andygb

This is a link to the government site regarding MOTs

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022108

It details the times when you may drive a vehicle without an MOT on the road (to and from an MOT, or a place of repair), but it clearly states that you may invalidate your insurance.
Rather than listen to people spouting what may be termed "urban mythology", it is always worth looking at the relevant sites.

System

The directgov website often has out of date and/or incorrect information. You cannot take it all as gospel

andygb

BAA1 wrote: »

The directgov website often has out of date and/or incorrect information. You cannot take it all as gospel

Probably best to listen to your "mate down the pub then" as a lot of people on here seem to do.;)

Flyboy152

spiro wrote: »

That does not answer my question - has this been tested in court or documented in a law? Please provide details of the law that these T&Cs supercede.

Here is something to be going on with:

Is your insurance valid?

Driving without a valid MOT

Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT.

However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected. Driving without an MOT does carry a potentially hefty fine though.

Now, I know it isn't a specific quote from a particular piece of legislation, But I really do think that Parkers would have checked.

pendulum

plutoniumpilot wrote: »

I said it "may" affect your insurance depending on the terms in your policy ... if the car has no valid MOT (roadworthy or not) then the insurer may decide to reduce the payout to third party only

That's true, but that's not what you said. You originally claimed the insurance may be invalid. The policy can't be invalidated through no MoT or Tax alone.