driving to MOT test while SORN, will insurance be valid?

southerly

My car is currently declared SORN, although I have comprehensive insurance, and I want to bring it back into use. I know you are allowed to drive to an MOT test if it is prebooked, but I can't imagine insurers paying out in the case of an accident?
I have been to a local MOT place, not really sure if I trust their verdict so would like to book to go to the council one, 22 miles drive and not a familiar area to me, so I will be nervous driving there anyway, obviously won't do it if insurance would not be valid.

The local garage have said a new shock absorber is needed, but this has never been mentioned as an advisory before (last mot was Nov 11). I know you can check yourself by bouncing the corners, but I have left it with them to look further at the brakes so they can quote for repair on those as well!

paddedjohn

Just because it wasn't advised doesn't mean it hasn't failed. If it has failed the test on shocks then you might as well get them done, by the time you have paid for another test you will already be £40-£50 down and it still could fail on the same things or even more. A bounce test won't prove the shocky has failed, it could be leaking.

Your insurance is valid without mot even off you weren't going to a test but your payout could be reduced if your car is below par.

TrickyWicky

paddedjohn wrote: »

Your insurance is valid without mot even off you weren't going to a test but your payout could be reduced if your car is below par.

How do you know? The op has not mentioned who their insurer is or if they even have a seperate policy for the SORN'd car or just using their comprehensive and assuming it will cover them.

If its the latter, this is typically 3rd party only insurance on cars the policy holder DOES NOT OWN. In other words, if your partner owns it, you're fine to drive it. If the policy holder owns it, they want more money out of you via another seperate policy.

Then of course some insurers refuse to cover cars with no MOT or Tax.

@southerly: You need to check with your insurers instead of relying on the gospel truth of internet know it alls. Many insurers publish their policy terms on their website so that is the first place you need to look. Again, don't trust internet truths because if you get tugged, the internet won't get you off the hook with PC Plod when he's writing you up for no insurance.

Joe_Horner

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Then of course some insurers refuse to cover cars with no MOT or Tax.

@southerly: You need to check with your insurers instead of relying on the gospel truth of internet know it alls. Many insurers publish their policy terms on their website so that is the first place you need to look. Again, don't trust internet truths because if you get tugged, the internet won't get you off the hook with PC Plod when he's writing you up for no insurance.

How many times does this myth have to be squashed before it stays dead?

Assuming the policy the op is talking about is actually a policy on the SORN car rather than relying on DOC cover:

It doesn't matter what an insurer puts in their policy, they cannot, by law, invalidate the required element of insurance because of MOT, tax, or roadworthiness issues. If they put a clause in the policy that tries to do so then that clause is invalid as far as the third party element (the legally required bit) is concerned.

In fact, they'd be very hard pressed to invalidate even the comprehensive part of a policy for a trip to a pre-booked MOT because these clauses invariably require you to have a valid MOT "if required" (because some cars don't need them). When you're on the way to a pre-booked MOT, or back from one, your car doesn't require an MOT, so any such clause wouldn't apply as a simple matter of contract, never mind law!


eta: As for the shock absorber, as said the fact it wasn't advised previously doesn't mean it hasn't failed.

The "bounce test" is pretty subjective because the fail criteria is "has negligible damping effect". that basically means that you have to be at the point where the car bounces like Zebedee on speed before it fails.

Far more likely is that it's started leaking - that can happen without warning because seals can fail suddenly. But to fail for this there should be a fairly obvious leak - the manual is specific that

"Slight seepage causing a film of fluid on a shock absorber is not a reason for rejection"

Section 2.7 refers:

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/doitonline/bl/mottestingmanualsandguides/mottestingmanualsandguides.htm

Trebor16

TrickyWicky wrote: »

How do you know? The op has not mentioned who their insurer is or if they even have a seperate policy for the SORN'd car or just using their comprehensive and assuming it will cover them.

If its the latter, this is typically 3rd party only insurance on cars the policy holder DOES NOT OWN. In other words, if your partner owns it, you're fine to drive it. If the policy holder owns it, they want more money out of you via another seperate policy.

Then of course some insurers refuse to cover cars with no MOT or Tax.

@southerly: You need to check with your insurers instead of relying on the gospel truth of internet know it alls. Many insurers publish their policy terms on their website so that is the first place you need to look. Again, don't trust internet truths because if you get tugged, the internet won't get you off the hook with PC Plod when he's writing you up for no insurance.

No MOT will not invalidate your insurance and that is a fact,not based on "internet know it alls" or "internet truths". Insurance companies have been hauled over the coals by the FSA for trying to repudiate claims where vehicles have not had a valid MOT.

Under FSA regulation (The Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook, rule 8.1.2 to be precise) an insurer can only repudiate a claim from a consumer on grounds of breach of warranty or condition if the breach actually caused or contributed to the loss (unless there is an element of fraud). Thus an insurer can only reject a claim on the grounds of a car being unroadworthy if that unroadworthiness actually caused or contributed to the accident or loss. To do that they would have to prove (i) that the car was unroadworthy and (ii) that the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the accident or loss. A lack of MOT will not help them prove this either way.

If an insurance company tried it on a complaint to the FSA would soon put them right.

TrickyWicky

Joe, you're very wrong.

I'm with one of the major insurers. Last year, I wanted to take my car to an MOT - the current one had expired. They refused point blank to insure the car saying it has no MOT and therefore as far as they're concerned it is not roadworthy. After kicking up a stink, they eventually agreed to give me 3rd party only but this was a "goodwill gesture".

You are correct that they cannot invalidate the requirement for insurance. They can however simply refuse to cover the vehicle. THAT is the point I am making. Some insurers will not cover a vehicle if it has no MOT or Tax. You cannot force them to cover it by saying they can't invalidate the requirement - they'll just tell you to try another insurer. The law that you must have 3rd party cover is not for the insurers to abide by Joe, its for you and I the motorists to abide by.

That is why I said what I said. I do wish you'd try to understand these things a bit more before making your generalised remarks Joe. You've even tried to correct me over parking issues in the past and I used to be a CEO!

Joe_Horner

Trebor16 wrote: »

Thus an insurer can only reject a claim on the grounds of a car being unroadworthy if that unroadworthiness actually caused or contributed to the accident or loss. To do that they would have to prove (i) that the car was unroadworthy and (ii) that the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the accident or loss..

And, even then, they would have to honour any third party element of the claim, although they could then sue you for the money. But you would still be insured as far as the law's concerned.

Joe_Horner

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Joe, you're very wrong.

I'm with one of the major insurers. Last year, I wanted to take my car to an MOT - the current one had expired. They refused point blank to insure the car saying it has no MOT and therefore as far as they're concerned it is not roadworthy. After kicking up a stink, they eventually agreed to give me 3rd party only but this was a "goodwill gesture".

You are correct that they cannot invalidate the requirement for insurance. They can however simply refuse to cover the vehicle. THAT is the point I am making. Some insurers will not cover a vehicle if it has no MOT or Tax. You cannot force them to cover it by saying they can't invalidate the requirement - they'll just tell you to try another insurer. The law that you must have 3rd party cover is not for the insurers to abide by Joe, its for you and I the motorists to abide by.

That is why I said what I said. I do wish you'd try to understand these things a bit more before making your generalised remarks Joe. You've even tried to correct me over parking issues in the past and I used to be a CEO!

Of course they can refuse to issue a new policy, but they can do that on any grounds they like - "Sorry, sir, we don't cover people with a J in their initials".

What they can't do is invalidate an existing one, which the OP appears to have.

TrickyWicky

Yes they can and again, the op hasn't specified if its a policy on the actual car or another car and they're intending to use the 3rd party cover for other cars.

Why do you think I said they need to check directly with their insurers? - Only their insurer will be able to tell them the exact details of their policy terms and conditions. Not you, not I, not anyone else.

I know you think you're helping but if you're wrong and the op takes your advice and then gets in trouble with the law, it ain't your backside and licence on the line is it. Ultimately the op needs to get a 100% solid answer from their insurer.

Quentin

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Yes they can and again, the op hasn't specified if its a policy on the actual car or another car and they're intending to use the 3rd party cover for other cars.

Why do you think I said they need to check directly with their insurers? - Only their insurer will be able to tell them the exact details of their policy terms and conditions. Not you, not I, not anyone else.

I know you think you're helping but if you're wrong and the op takes your advice and then gets in trouble with the law, it ain't your backside and licence on the line is it. Ultimately the op needs to get a 100% solid answer from their insurer.

Ignore all this.

Insurers who state in their policies that the car must have a current mot know they are trying it on.

It seems former ceos have some gullibility over this, but this scaremongering can be safely ignored.

Dinney

I looked up insurance online for a motorcycle I am restoring and at the moment it has no MOT ,found a good deal online so thought I would ring them to confirm if I would be covered going to and from a prearranged MOT and they said no cover without MOT even if booked in advance