Car declared SORN but....

maddogb

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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



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.

Good work but please lose the attitude it's not needed and it makes you look silly going to all that effort to make /to state simple things that are wrong

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

With most insurance matters, the company will consider a claim by the policyholder, and make a decision to settle or void the claim.


The difference with motor insurance is that legislation requires that the insurance companies meet third party liabilities, irrespective of their consideration to settle or void the claim (if there is one or not), by the policyholder.


For example, an insurance company may decide to void the claim by a policyholder if they were involved in an accident if the terms and conditions of their policy had not been complied with, eg. because the vehicle had no current MOT.
But the insurance company would still be required to meet any third party liabilities, and could then claim that amount from the policyholder.

maddogb

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Here.

Yet your policy actually says unroadworthy.

will you please get the hang of quotes, it helps me show where you are wrong


“ In which you said your policy is void if you do not have an mot, but it doesn't say that does it?
Originally posted by Silver-Surfer ”



what???? I showed a photo with the written exceptions that "the insurers" say will make it void, not me, and that included not having an MOT "where required"


how can I prove what it " doesn't say" but in answer no, I have been back to check ,and no I didn't say that, I did say

“
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?
Originally posted by maddogb”


I really don't know why you are having a problem understanding the difference between ME saying something and me quoting or paraphrasing something, maybe your not and just feeding an over compensated inferiority complex, either way the end result is annoying and getting no one anywhere.

Joe_Horner

maddogb wrote: »

Good work but please lose the attitude it's not needed and it makes you look silly going to all that effort to make to state simple things that are wrong

Err, No attitude here - you asked where the law said that condition didn't invalidate insurance so I explained it to you.

So what exactly is wrong in what I posted?

Car_54

None of this is of much help to the OP. All he/she really needs to know is that if the offending vehicle is insured, then the lack of an MOT does not invalidate that insurance for Road Traffic Act purposes, and therefore there is no insurance offence for the police to pursue.

Joe_Horner

Car_54 wrote: »

None of this is of much help to the OP. All he/she really needs to know is that if the offending vehicle is insured, then the lack of an MOT does not invalidate that insurance for Road Traffic Act purposes, and therefore there is no insurance offence for the police to pursue.

Agreed, but then people like Maddogb start repeating the old (completely incorrect) myths that it might be invalidated and confuse the simple (and correct) reply to the OP that the lack of MOT will make no difference to whether or not it's insured.

Silver-Surfer_2

maddogb wrote: »

will you please get the hang of quotes, it helps me show where you are wrong


“ In which you said your policy is void if you do not have an mot, but it doesn't say that does it?
Originally posted by Silver-Surfer ”



what???? I showed a photo with the written exceptions that "the insurers" say will make it void, not me, and that included not having an MOT "where required"


how can I prove what it " doesn't say" but in answer no, I have been back to check ,and no I didn't say that, I did say

“
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?
Originally posted by maddogb”


I really don't know why you are having a problem understanding the difference between ME saying something and me quoting or paraphrasing something, maybe your not and just feeding an over compensated inferiority complex, either way the end result is annoying and getting no one anywhere.

I suggest you go back and read your policy as no where does it state the will void it for no mot.

maddogb

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Err, No attitude here - you asked where the law said that condition didn't invalidate insurance so I explained it to you.

So what exactly is wrong in what I posted?

"As posted several times, the relevant legislation is S.148 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:"
You really don't get the attitude there? It's also
I was pointed to section 145, I pointed out that wasn't relevant that's all

maddogb

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Agreed, but then people like Maddogb start repeating the old (completely incorrect) myths that it might be invalidated and confuse the simple (and correct) reply to the OP that the lack of MOT will make no difference to whether or not it's insured.

No wonder I pick up attitude, it's there

I did state what my policy said via paraphrase, I did not state it was legal, I did not state it had any meaning in the real world, I simply read it and relayed it.

maddogb

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I suggest you go back and read your policy as no where does it state the will void it for no mot.

Really? You have a copy of my policy? If you do I suggest YOU go an read it because it's there, if u can understand more than the simplest of English