Car declared SORN but....

Joe_Horner

No, I don't get the attitude there.

I do, however, get the attitude streaming off you as you try to defend your completely incorrect assertion that insurance companies can void the legally required cover because of MOT, tax or roadworthiness matters.

Including, but not limited to, trying to divert the question into what was presumably a typo by someone who clearly knew wha the law said typing 145 instead of 148.

The fact remains that your assertion that they could invalidate or void the legallt required level of cover is, quite simply, wrong.

maddogb

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.

It's likely all irrelevant, chances are there hasn't been a policy there for some time if he won't pay road tax it's highly unlikely he will pay insurance for it just does't make sense

Silver-Surfer_2

maddogb wrote: »

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

You posted this claiming it to be from your policy.



Please show us were, it mentions they may void the policy if the vehicle is unroadworthy. Where does it say for no mot?

All it states about the mot is you should take reasonable steps to have one if required.

[Deleted User]

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?

Maybe the neighbour keeps taking it for an MOT and it keeps failing .... seriously though MadDog is correct, and I believe that the MOT appointment has to be 'pre-booked' to prevent the driver saying 'I was on my way for an MOT now ossifer ....'

maddogb

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, I don't get the attitude there.

I do, however, get the attitude streaming off you as you try to defend your completely incorrect assertion that insurance companies can void the legally required cover because of MOT, tax or roadworthiness matters.

Including, but not limited to, trying to divert the question into what was presumably a typo by someone who clearly knew wha the law said typing 145 instead of 148.

The fact remains that your assertion that they could invalidate or void the legallt required level of cover is, quite simply, wrong.

I should hope there is "attitude" streaming off me, it's quite deliberate as I struggle to assert I haven,'t made any claims, I just told you what my policy said, It's therefore NOT my assertion, it' s my insurers get it yet?

maddogb

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

You posted this claiming it to be from your policy.



Please show us were, it mentions they may void the policy if the vehicle is unroadworthy. Where does it say for no mot?

All it states about the mot is you should take reasonable steps to have one if required.

Oh dear God!
What exactly do you think that is a picture of? My shopping list or maybe a list of things my insurers deem fit reasons for cancelling my policy.

Joe_Horner

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?

[QUOTE=maddogb;70399475[...] I struggle to assert I haven,'t made any claims, I just told you what my policy said, It's therefore NOT my assertion, it' s my insurers get it yet?[/QUOTE]


Well, in that case I apologise for misunderstanding your first post quoted above, where you (not your insurers) said that SS's post "wasn't definite".

Regardless, you can now move on in the happy, and certain, knowledge that - no matter what you policy wording may say - the Road Traffic Act specifically forbids them from voiding the legally required cover if (God forbid) you should ever slip up on your MOT dates or have a mechanical issue with your car that you haven't noticed.

maddogb

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, I don't get the attitude there.

I do, however, get the attitude streaming off you as you try to defend your completely incorrect assertion that insurance companies can void the legally required cover because of MOT, tax or roadworthiness matters.

Including, but not limited to, trying to divert the question into what was presumably a typo by someone who clearly knew wha the law said typing 145 instead of 148.

The fact remains that your assertion that they could invalidate or void the legallt required level of cover is, quite simply, wrong.

I'm not trying to divert anything and I take it as "wrong" you saying I am.
I am also not prepared to read the whole bloody act on someone's say so
Go look at my thread about esure, I just pointed to a law, and I was accurate as to which part, no question there.

Silver-Surfer_2

Sleazy wrote: »

Maybe the neighbour keeps taking it for an MOT and it keeps failing .... seriously though MadDog is correct, and I believe that the MOT appointment has to be 'pre-booked' to prevent the driver saying 'I was on my way for an MOT now ossifer ....'

Yeah it needs to be booked but you can drive it home if it fails. Re book and drive it back. So his once a year limit is wrong.

Silver-Surfer_2

maddogb wrote: »

Oh dear God!
What exactly do you think that is a picture of? My shopping list or maybe a list of things my insurers deem fit reasons for cancelling my policy.

So they may cancel for being unroadworthy were is the cancellation for no mot?

Not there is it?:D