Car insured or not /

profnick

Last night my son was stopped by a routine MOT police check, and found much to his embarrassment that he had forgotten to renew his MOT. Although he had a valid current insurance certificate, when the police officer rang his insurer they said his insurance was not valid. He was thus charged both with not having a valid MOT and not having insurance. Is this right? It seems from reading other threads that opinions differ; surely there should be a definitive answer?

FlameCloud

Insurer was wrong. Even if the policy contains a clause regarding the need for an mot it can only be used to decline a claim if the lack of an mot is the cause of the accident.

I would get onto them and put in a formal complaint. They will need to confirm that you had cover at the time.

dacouch

Which Insurer is it ? (I'm guessing it's a rubbish Insurer such as 1st Central)

As Flamecloud mentioned put in an "official complaint" (Send it by recorded delivery) and ensure you mention hold the Insurer fully responsible for all costs and consequential costs. I would also send a copy to the relevant counties Chief Constable holding them repsonsible

The Insurer cannot affect your Insurer due to a lack of MOT for the following reasons (Refer to these in your Official Complaint).

From the Insurance Ombudsman

"13. roadworthiness

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."

Which basically means an Insurer can deny your claim providing they have a clause stating they won't pay if your car is "Unroadworthy" and it being unroadworthy caused or significantly caused the claim. They cannot refuse a claim (No matter what the policy says) due to lack of MOT if the car is roadworthy. (It should be noted that lack of an MOT does not make a car unroadworthy).

The Insurer could reduce your written off car payment if you have no MOT as a car without an MOT is worth less than a car with an MOT.

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

Also and more importantly from the FSA who regulate your Insurer and they have no choice but to follow the rule.

"8.1.2

A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except
where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:
8.1.2
(1) non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk which the
policyholder could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed;
or
(2) non-negligent misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk;
or
(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the
claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure
protection contract):"

The above in a nutshell means an Insurer cannot refuse a claim due to a warranty or condition contained in the policy if the breach is not connected to the claim. So not having an MOT would not cause you to have a claim unless the car was "Unroadworthy" and for instance you had faulty brakes which meant you could not stop in time.

Another example of this would be your Home Insurance having a clause saying you must have certain door and window locks. If your house burnt down due to an electrical fault this would not be connected to you not having the required door and window locks so the Insurer would need to pay the claim.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel73/rel73icobs.pdf

Feel free to draw this thread to your Insurer's attention and the Chief Constable's attention.

So to confirm not having an MOT does not invalidate your Insurance irrespective of what your rubbish Insurer says in the policy or over the phone to the police.

There are plenty of cases on MSE where customers have had their claims declined due to lack of MOT, after seeking advice from MSE members and referring to the above links in their Official Complaints all of the claims have been paid. You can find them by searching MSE or googling it.

If you need any further advice feel free to post, let us know which Insurer your with as the underwriters (The people who have the knowledge) already know what I've posted but are chancing their arm by putting a clause in their policy.

forgotmyname

Are they saying its not valid because of the MOT issue or is it for another reason?

Just clarify that with them. Then go onto the complaints as mentioned above.

profnick

Hi,
Thank you all very much for such quick and helpful replies. The policeman who dealt with this was also surprised that the insurance company (Admiral) claimed over the phone that the policy was invalid. They also claimed that it did not cover "commuting" and yet on the certificate it specifically says it does! I was wondering if they were trying to invalidate it on the basis that the MOT had expired prior to the recent renewal, (which was paid in full and a certificate received).
Nick

dacouch

profnick wrote: »

Hi,
Thank you all very much for such quick and helpful replies. The policeman who dealt with this was also surprised that the insurance company (Admiral) claimed over the phone that the policy was invalid. They also claimed that it did not cover "commuting" and yet on the certificate it specifically says it does! I was wondering if they were trying to invalidate it on the basis that the MOT had expired prior to the recent renewal, (which was paid in full and a certificate received).
Nick

A cheap and cheerful Insurer however they do not state you must have an MOT (Although as explained above that is irrelevant). They do however state the following which again is irrelevant to your case.

"3 Care of your car
You or any person covered by the policy must:
■ protect your car from loss or damage
■ make sure your car is roadworthy
■ allow us to inspect your car at any reasonable time we ask
If an accident happens, and the condition of the vehicle caused or contributed to the
accident, no cover under the policy will be provided and instead, our responsibility
will be restricted to meeting obligations as required by Road Traffic law. In those
circumstances, we will recover from you or the driver or any party responsible for the
condition of the vehicle, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or
under a judgement, of any claim arising from the accident"

http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%20_policybook_1212.pdf page 23.

The Road Traffic Act which Insurers have to abide by as it's a law requires Admiral to pay out on third party claims (People / Property you hit). As you can see from the above quote they reserve the right if your car was "Unroadwothy" and this caused or significantly caused (Again this ties in with my earlier quotes). This confirms (They have no choice) what I said earlier and that you were infact legally insured.

Unfortunately a large amount of Insurance Company staff have very little proper knowledge of Insurance and answer unusual questions with a hunch or from urban myths which is what I suspect the person who spoke to the police did.

I strongly recommend your son makes a record of all costs he is incurring eg train tickets, phone calls etc and what he is missing out on eg could he could not attend a concert he had tickets for etc etc.

Give Admiral a call on Monday, you need to speak to someone senior ideally someone in Underwriting and explain the situation, mention the information I gave you earlier and how grave situation is for you and ultimately Admiral as the longer they take to correct the matter the more it will cost them.

On top of the costs he physically incurs they should also pay £100 to £250 for distress compensation. If you hit them in the pocket they are more likely to take action to prevent it happening again.

Someone at Admiral has made a massive mistake which even if it's sorted out quickly will cost Admiral a fair amount.

dacouch

Here are a few links to people who have had a claim refused due to no MOT and subsequently had the claim paid.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/417682

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4239715

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2728249

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1887019

There are plenty more.

P.S If you look on your MOT certificate it says to the effect that it does not confirm the car is roadworthy, just that it was on the day of the MOT test. Thus having an MOT is not proof that the car was roadworthy.

newfoundglory

dacouch wrote: »

P.S If you look on your MOT certificate it says to the effect that it does not confirm the car is roadworthy, just that it was on the day of the MOT test. Thus having an MOT is not proof that the car was roadworthy.

I was about to say this - in fact does it even provide proof on the day of the test - I thought it was "at the time of the test" or words similar to that :rotfl:

That said it would be helpful if police officers were aware that no MOT cannot invalidate insurance, even if the policy has words stating that. I'm sure the Officer was just calling to verify that the policy existed and mentioned the reason for doing so in passing.

studley

Incidentally....

As a car now must be either taxed AND insured or subject to a SORN then there will be a number of cars which are not currently MOT'd but have legally required insurance....and cars that are being driven to a pre-booked MOT inspection also require insurance but are legally being driven without MOT

so MOT is not and never can be a requirement of insurance, I am surprised the officer did not know this

spacey2012

Good advice:
Find the insurance certificate, put it in a safe and do not give it back to the insurance company under any circumstances.
Insurance can not be cancelled by phone, a written notice has to be served.
If a notice arrives it must give 7 days notice.
Take either or both parts to court and plead not guilty.
The CPS can not use hear say or indeed what was said on a telephone to someone else.
The certificate is either in force or it is not and any terms and conditions that limit its validity under the Road Traffic Act must be contained within the same box drawn around the certificate.
Other types of insurance can be subjective, fire and theft ect, but for the essential bit, what is on the certificate is valid.
If it is dated to cover the period and not cancellation has been served by post, which can not be back dated then it is valid.
Magistrates however dont have to take any notice, so you must be prepared to appeal to the higher court.

molerat

OP I think needs to look carefully at the renewal notice and t&cs. It may well state that the vehicle must have an MOT for them to start / renew the cover in which case a material fact which would have led them not to re-insure was not disclosed at the time of renewal. Many insurers will not insure a vehicle that does not hold a current MOT. This may put a whole new angle on the case and make it messier, the insurance may not be valid from inception due to non disclosure.