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

Quentin

TrickyWicky wrote: »

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.

You are barking up the wrong tree over this issue.

The fos has already ruled that insurers cannot use no mot to refuse to accept claims even if the policy demands a current mot!

Quentin

TrickyWicky wrote: »

.....You don't know a thing about their insurance as its not been posted by the op.

It's irrelevant what it says in the OP's policy.

Many "reputable" insurers (eg RAC) put a condition in their policies that say the car needs a current MOT.

They are trying it on, as it is unenforceable, and can be safely ignored!

Rover_Driver

Vehicles being driven to a pre-arranged MOT test are exempt from the requirement to have a valid certificate (in the same way they are exempt in respect of a vehicle excise licence).

As they would be in the same position as vehicles less than three years old - a certificate is not required, it would make no difference to the insurance in the OP's case.

dacouch

TrickyWicky wrote: »

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..

Do you mean like the police in this case...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4374613

Oh hang on...

TrickyWicky

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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.

Yes I completely agree with you on that. I think we're on a different wavelength here somehow.

I'm talking about arranging insurance on a vehicle. The rest of you seem to be talking existing cover. The op hasn't clearly specified their insurance is lready existing on this vehicle OR if its a policy on another vehicle and they'll be using their other cars extension.

The op said this:

My car is currently declared SORN, although I have comprehensive insurance, and I want to bring it back into use.

It isn't clear if the op means on that car or another. If its on the sorn car then yes, I'll agree they're theoretically covered. If they're hoping to use the policies 'other cars' to drive the SORN car then this is a can of worms waiting to explode. As stated previously, this is usually only usable on other peoples cars so the op would need their own policy which many insurers will not grant without an MOT. Not telling them at the time of taking out the policy could lead to them voiding it.

My point is, the only realistic way to get to the bottom of this is for the op to ring the insurer and discuss the situation.

Hopefully this clears up my POV once and for all and apologies if it's me who's got the wavelengths mistuned..

Joe_Horner

Fair one, Tricky. My original post was made on the basis of his insurance being specific to the car in question. DOC is effectively a courtesy and, as you say, wouldn't apply to another of his own cars.

It would be an interesting question for a court whether or not it was still bound by the full provisions of the RTA in a case like this though (eg: driving a mate's car to it's MOT using your DOC cover).

I suspect it would because it's an absolute prohibition on such clauses n the Act for any policy but it's not one I'd like to test!

Trebor16

TrickyWicky wrote: »

I'm talking about arranging insurance on a vehicle. The rest of you seem to be talking existing cover. The op hasn't clearly specified their insurance is lready existing on this vehicle OR if its a policy on another vehicle and they'll be using their other cars extension.

From the OP's original post:-

"My car is currently declared SORN, although I have comprehensive insurance, and I want to bring it back into use"

dacouch

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Fair one, Tricky. My original post was made on the basis of his insurance being specific to the car in question. DOC is effectively a courtesy and, as you say, wouldn't apply to another of his own cars.

It would be an interesting question for a court whether or not it was still bound by the full provisions of the RTA in a case like this though (eg: driving a mate's car to it's MOT using your DOC cover).

I suspect it would because it's an absolute prohibition on such clauses n the Act for any policy but it's not one I'd like to test!

The FSA and Ombudsman both prevent an Insurer declining a claim through lack of an MOT irrespective of whether the specified car on a policy or a DOC extension

TrickyWicky

Trebor16 wrote: »

From the OP's original post:-

"My car is currently declared SORN, although I have comprehensive insurance, and I want to bring it back into use"

Yes and? He states he has comprehensive insurance but not on what car.

Quentin

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Yes and? He states he has comprehensive insurance but not on what car.

You still at it??

This was your poor (and incorrect) advice which posters have subsequently been correcting:

TrickyWicky wrote: »

......Some insurers will not cover a vehicle if it has no MOT ......

Why don't you simply stand corrected and save anyone else getting the wrong end of this particular stick as you have done?