Car declared SORN but....

maddogb

Rover_Driver wrote: »

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.

still can't see that, that section appears to refer to what YOU must do in respect to insurance requirements.

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

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

did I? can't see that, where is it?

maddogb

jimjames wrote: »

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.

did I say that anywhere, so busy I can't remember..

Rover_Driver

maddogb wrote: »

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.

Similar matter, someone sold their vehicle and didn't cancel the insurance, so no longer complied with terms and conditions of their policy etc. The insurance company were obliged to pay out. Then claimed their loss from the policy holder - s.151 (7), Road Traffic Act 1988.


http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?19031-car-sold-but-insurance-left-running-now-a-claim-against-me

maddogb

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Similar matter, someone sold their vehicle and didn't cancel the insurance, so no longer complied with terms and conditions of their policy etc. The insurance company were obliged to pay out. Then claimed their loss from the policy holder - s.151 (7), Road Traffic Act 1988.


http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?19031-car-sold-but-insurance-left-running-now-a-claim-against-me

I think you need to be more careful with use of quotes, makes it really hard to read and follow them.


not sure it's comparable other laws eg UTCC tend to state a term may be excluded if it is judged to be unfair but that doesn't necessarily void the policy or the other terms...

Rover_Driver

maddogb wrote: »

I think you need to be more careful with use of quotes, makes it really hard to read and follow them.


not sure it's comparable other laws eg UTCC tend to state a term may be excluded if it is judged to be unfair but that doesn't necessarily void the policy or the other terms...

It is not an unfair term, it is legislation.
It may be different for other insurance matters, but in the
case of motor insurance, even if the policyholder has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy and the insurance company do void it, the insurance company are still liable for third party claims.

maddogb

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It is not an unfair term, it is legislation.
It may be different for other insurance matters, but in the
case of motor insurance, even if the policyholder has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy and the insurance company do void it, the insurance company are still liable for third party claims.

Sorry but I can't see anything there that substantiated your post. The simple mention of a piece of legislation without a logical link means nothing

The main diff between this and what you are pointing too is maybe the insurers choosing to not hold up the terms in that case, i can't see anything demonstrating they were forced to

Rover_Driver

maddogb wrote: »

The main diff between this and what you are pointing too is maybe the insurers choosing to not hold up the terms in that case, i can't see anything demonstrating they were forced to

To comply with s.145, Road Traffic Act 1988.

maddogb

Rover_Driver wrote: »

To comply with s.145, Road Traffic Act 1988.

You have said that already but the post you are using to back it up does not.

I am not saying you are wrong just that the statements you made do not connect.

Joe_Horner

maddogb wrote: »

Sorry but I can't see anything there that substantiated your post. The simple mention of a piece of legislation without a logical link means nothing

The main diff between this and what you are pointing too is maybe the insurers choosing to not hold up the terms in that case, i can't see anything demonstrating they were forced to

As posted several times, the relevant legislation is S.148 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

rta1988 wrote:

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].




(3)Nothing in subsection (1) above requires an insurer or the giver of a security to pay any sum in respect of the liability of any person otherwise than in or towards the discharge of that liability.


(4)Any sum paid by an insurer or the giver of a security in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy or security by virtue only of subsection (1) above is recoverable by the insurer or giver of the security from that person.

The bold bits are what matter - I've marked them out to make them clearer.

What that section is saying is that:

Any part of a policy which claims to restrict liability for third party claims (ie: "the liabilities required to be covered under S.145") because of one of the factors listed will have no effect (ie: they won't restrict liability) in respect of those third party claims.

However, they don't have to cover other liabilities (such as damage to your own car) and, if they're required to pay out to a 3rd party because of this section, ss.(4) allows them to recover the payout from you.

One of the factors listed is "the condition of the vehicle". The condition of the vehicle covers both its physical condition (whether or not it's roadworthy) and it's legal condition (whether or not it has an MOT or tax).

So, if you have no tax or MOT, or even if your car is a bag of nails that's dropping bits along the roadside, the insurer cannot (by law) use that to refuse to pay a third party claim but can use it to refuse to pay for damage to your own car (although there are separate Ombudsman rulings restricting that) and they can sue you to recover any payments they do make.

Because any innocent third party will be paid regardless, the insurance is valid as far as required by the RTA so you wouldn't face a "no insurance" charge.

Silver-Surfer_2

maddogb wrote: »

did I? can't see that, where is it?

Here.

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?

Yet your policy actually says unroadworthy.