No MOT = no insurance?

missile

I do not think this is correct? See http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Road_Tax_and_MOT

An MOT test is required to be passed annually by all motor vehicles over 3 years of age. Without a valid MOT you will be unable to insure your car and any existing insurance will be invalidated, resulting in an offence.
It is not an offence to drive a motor vehicle without a valid MOT if:

• you are taking it to a pre-arranged MOT test,
• you are taking it to a place of repair after it has failed an MOT test in order that it will be able to pass the test.

Insurance is required to take a motor vehicle to an MOT test.
Three white triangles on a blue background is the symbol for an authorised MOT-issuing garage.

Catch 22: How can one be insured to take a motor vehicle to an MOT test, if having no MOT invalidates the insurance?

AFIK, having no MOT does NOT invalidate insurance. Can someone point me to reliable info to confirm?

Many Thanks :A

Stroma

Having no mot does not invalidate insurance, this is an urban myth!

dacouch

"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

"81.2 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"

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel73/rel73icobs.pdf FSA have just been replaced by FCA

Gloomendoom

missile wrote: »

I do not think this is correct? See http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Road_Tax_and_MOT

An MOT test is required to be passed annually by all motor vehicles over 3 years of age.

That bit certainly isn't correct.

andygb

Gloomendoom wrote: »

That bit certainly isn't correct.

Not a very good internet law advice site is it.
They have forgotten about all the pre 1961 (?) vehicles which are not required to have an MOT test (which IMO is absolutely bonkers).

LandyAndy

Seems hard to imagine that if your vehicle (without MoT) was stolen from your private driveway that your insurers would refuse to settle.

ILW

andygb wrote: »

Not a very good internet law advice site is it.
They have forgotten about all the pre 1961 (?) vehicles which are not required to have an MOT test (which IMO is absolutely bonkers).

I have a 1950 bike which was getting nigh on impossible to MOT due to modern standards being totally different.

Herzlos

andygb wrote: »

Not a very good internet law advice site is it.
They have forgotten about all the pre 1961 (?) vehicles which are not required to have an MOT test (which IMO is absolutely bonkers).

It's unlikely anyone with a pre 1961 car will not know about the MOT exemption, which makes perfect sense because the MOT test covers a lot of things that aren't applicable to older cars (cars pre CAT-converters, seatbelts, airbags, powered wipers and multi-mode lights, for instance).

maninthestreet

ILW wrote: »

I have a 1950 bike which was getting nigh on impossible to MOT due to modern standards being totally different.

Really? There are less stringent requirements for older vehicles/bikes, e.g emissions - what problems have you been encountering on the MOT test for this bike?

alanrowell

Whilst it may not invalidate the policy, it is likely to restrict the pay out so whilst 3rd parties will be covered your personal losses won't be.

spacey2012

Insurance is in two bits
Part 1 Road Traffic Act : this is mandatory and is backed by case law
part 2 The extras, fire, theft, fully comp, these are contractual terms.