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

Johnmcl7

Trebor16 wrote: »

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.

Yep, this is what the Ombudsman says on roadworthiness:

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.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#13

John

Aretnap

The Road Traffic Act specifically prohibits insurers from making the legal minimum third party cover conditional on the condition of your vehicle. Any clause in the policy which purported to invalidate it if your car was unroadworthy would be rendered void by statute.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148

148 Avoidance of certain exceptions to policies or securities.

(1)Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—
(a)the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or
(b)the operation of the security,(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.
(2)Those matters are—
(a)the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b)the condition of the vehicle,
(c)the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d)the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e)the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f)the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g)the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h)the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under [F1the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994].

TrickyWicky

Yes but roadworthiness isn't the same as having a valid MOT is it.

Bottom line here is that you lot may think that you can tell the op 100% that they'll be ok. If the blues and twos pull the op saying they have no MOT and the insurers suddenly declare to Plod on the phone "No, it's not valid without an MOT officer" what are you going to do for the op? - Nothing.

Always be prepared for the worst case scenario..

Quentin

More scaremongering!

Having a mot is no proof of roadworthiness!!

TrickyWicky

Aretnap wrote: »

The Road Traffic Act specifically prohibits insurers from making the legal minimum third party cover conditional on the condition of your vehicle. Any clause in the policy which purported to invalidate it if your car was unroadworthy would be rendered void by statute.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148

For some reason there is no thanks button on your post for me to click.

You are right that they can't make 3rd party conditional but they can refuse to cover the vehicle full stop.

When I wanted cover for a car with no MOT so I could get it there, they point blank refused to insure it because it had no current MOT. This is not stated anywhere in their policy document but they insisted that they would not move from this position. 45 minutes and a lot of quarrelling later, they agreed to provide 3rd party only to get it off the ANPR radar but they firmly told me if there was an accident they would not pay out on it.

Legal or not I don't really care but their official stance was "We don't cover cars with no MOT".

Go figure..

TrickyWicky

Quentin wrote: »

More scaremongering!

Having a mot is no proof of roadworthiness!!

I'm not scaremongering, I'm watching the ops back.

Besides, how is telling the op to check with their insurer scaremongering? You don't know a thing about their insurance as its not been posted by the op.

Quentin

TrickyWicky wrote: »

For some reason there is no thanks button on your post for me to click.

You are right that they can't make 3rd party conditional but they can refuse to cover the vehicle full stop.

When I wanted cover for a car with no MOT so I could get it there, they point blank refused to insure it because it had no current MOT. This is not stated anywhere in their policy document but they insisted that they would not move from this position. 45 minutes and a lot of quarrelling later, they agreed to provide 3rd party only to get it off the ANPR radar but they firmly told me if there was an accident they would not pay out on it.

Go figure..

Had you made a claim and it was refused purely because of no mot then irrespective of what they told you the fos would make them pay out!

TrickyWicky

Quentin wrote: »

Had you made a claim and it was refused purely because of no mot then irrespective of what they told you the fos would make them pay out!

IF the fos knew about it. If they didn't and the motorist was not aware of this then .. you get the idea.

Even so, it doesn't mean they must insure you if you have no MOT.

vaio

Dinney wrote: »

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

I think that was your mistake........when they offered you the "good deal" it was based on your answers to the proposal questions written by highly trained and paid insurance professionals who will have asked about MOT status if they cared.

When you rang you talked to a poorly paid & trained call centre operative who often guess (or try and increase your premium) if you ask them a slightly unusual question that isn't on the computer driven script they work from........."Computer says no, cough"

Joe_Horner

TrickyWicky wrote: »

45 minutes and a lot of quarrelling later, they agreed to provide 3rd party only to get it off the ANPR radar but they firmly told me if there was an accident they would not pay out on it.

Legal or not I don't really care but their official stance was "We don't cover cars with no MOT".

Go figure..

"to get it off the ANPR radar" suggests you were trying to take out a new policy. As I said, they can refuse new business for any, or no, reason.

What they simply CAN'T do is refuse a 3rd party claim on an existing policy because of no MOT, or even dangerous faults, regardless of anything in their policy conditions.

That isn't a matter of their contract with you, that's a very simple matter of law.

Look at your certificate. Somewhere on there it will say "complies with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act". If it doesn't then it's not legal insurance.

One of those requirements that it MUST comply with is that any policy conditions regarding the condition of the vehicle - which includes roadworthiness, whether or not it's MOTd and tax (all are matters of it's "condition") - are not valid with regards to the legally required part of the insurance.

So, having issued a policy, they MUST cover 3rd party claims even if you're driving round with 4 different size tyres (one bald), no brakes and the bonnet flapping in the wind. They will then take you to the cleaners for what it's cost them, but the insurance is still valid as far as the law is concerned.