Car declared SORN but....

Silver-Surfer_2

maddogb wrote: »

are you willing to give me some incentive like back up your previous arrogant post :P


if you guys put more time into worthwhile projects instead of !!!!!ing on here my dsl might be as quick to upload stuff as you lot want it.

By arrogant do you mean factual?

The legislation that backs it up has already been posted.

Silver-Surfer_2

pappa_golf wrote: »

this argument is raised every time someone starts a thread like this




READ YOUR POLICY!


mine mentions roadworthiness NOT if it has an MOT or not

So does his.

maddogb

rs65 wrote: »

see post #32

? don't get that, my post of the T&Cs was in response to your post 32..

shaun_from_Africa

It's quite possible that some insurance policies state that they will be invalidated in the case of the covered vehicle not having an MOT but this doesn't mean that the term concerned is legally enforceable.
After all, how many online retailers have illegal T&Cs regarding returns and refunds?

Silver-Surfer_2

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It's quite possible that some insurance policies state that they will be invalidated in the case of the covered vehicle not having an MOT but this doesn't mean that the term concerned is legally enforceable.
After all, how many online retailers have illegal T&Cs regarding returns and refunds?

They may well be enforceable on everything but a third party claim.

Rover_Driver

My own policy states the insurers can declare the policy null and void if I fail to have a valid MOT "if required"


It may affect the claim you make, but if there is a policy of insurance covering the time of the incident, the insurance company would be required to meet any third party claims - s.145, Road Traffic Act 1988. They may then try to recover their outlay from you.

Silver-Surfer_2

maddogb wrote: »

? don't get that, my post of the T&Cs was in response to your post 32..

In which you said your policy is void if you do not have an mot, but it doesn't say that does it?

jimjames

maddogb wrote: »

that's not definite tho is it?
My own policy states the insurers can declare the policy null and void if I fail to have a valid MOT "if required"
ASFAIK the only exception to use on a public road is travel to a MOT testing station for an MOT so possibly once a year?

If you have an accident and have no Mot when required then the policy may be cancelled. It doesn't automatically void a policy to have no Mot if the car isn't being used and has no Mot.

maddogb

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

By arrogant do you mean factual?

The legislation that backs it up has already been posted.

no, I mean arrogant the post as to the specific law hadn't been posted when I queried your statement.
A brief read through the aforementioned part is quite vague it outlines what a "valid" policy must do and it doesn't restrict what makes it invalid but heyho.
I would really like to see an example of where that was tested.

maddogb

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It's quite possible that some insurance policies state that they will be invalidated in the case of the covered vehicle not having an MOT but this doesn't mean that the term concerned is legally enforceable.
After all, how many online retailers have illegal T&Cs regarding returns and refunds?

well done!
but to be fair that was said in a specific context, one where it can be pointed to the specific law and the logics but for various reasons it was inadvisable to do so.