No MOT at time of car crash

uknick

My Aegas policy states under "Conditions that apply to all of this policy",
[FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT,Arial SFMT][FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT,Arial SFMT]

[FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT]5. Taking care of your car [/FONT][FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT]You must make sure that: [/FONT]

• [FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT]your car is in a roadworthy condition and is safe to drive; and [/FONT]
• [FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT]you do all you can to keep your car and its contents safe.[/FONT]
  
  [FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT]If your car is damaged by something covered under this policy, you must do whatever is necessary to protect your car and its accessories from further loss or damage.[/FONT]
  
  [FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT]If we ask, you must let us examine your car at any reasonable time.[/FONT]
  
  [FONT=SZMYW G+ Arial SFMT]Your car must have a current MOT certificate (if it applies).[/FONT]

and

10 Telling us about changes in your circumstances

Please tell us about any changes which may affect your cover. If you fail to do so, your policy may not be valid and we may not pay your claim.


So, in the context of this thread, if you don't renew your MoT, what happens? 3rd party coverage only?






[/FONT]



[/FONT]

Wig

uknick wrote: »

My Aegas policy states ....

So, in the context of this thread, if you don't renew your MoT, what happens? 3rd party coverage only?

No, your insurance is still valid both for damage to your car and damage to other cars.

For your insurer to be able to withdraw cover they would have to prove that your car was not roadworthy and that the aspect of the unroadworthyness significantly led to or caused the accident.

So, you are driving a car with no MOT, with 4 tyres under the tread limit. You stop at a traffic lights, an uninsured driver hits into the back of your car.

If damaged...your insurer has to repair the damage
If damaged beyond repair your insurer has to pay you the value of your car - The value would include the lack of MOT and 4 bald tyres. So it would be a reduced value, but they would still have to pay you.

If you drive round a corner too fast and the road is wet and off you go...then the insurer is likely to withdraw cover because your tyres led to the accident.

Same scenario and the road is dry, I would say they cannot withdraw cover because slick tyres are better grip in the dry that treaded tyres. But you would still have a reduced value for the lack of MOT and 4 bald tyres.


There is something new about failed to declare the defect or condition at policy inception will lead to a reduced percentage payout equal to the increase in premium that would have applied if declared at policy inception... I am not familiar with this...perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment what would happen in my scenarios and other scenarios, particularly on damage to a 3rd party where you are deemed at fault, under this law.?

System

AdrianC wrote: »

Don't complicate matters. It's a sheet of A4 that says "MOT Test Certificate" at the top of it.

You don't even get that. On the last MOT my car had TWO WEEKS AGO what I got is in portrait, not landscape and half those boxes no longer exist.

And if you actually read what you posted it says in "About this document" that "this is a receipt style". It is nothing more than a receipt that you've had a MOT and the details of that MOT test.

AdrianC

My bad - the certificate has always been portrait for tests in Wales, where my usual test centre is, to fit in the bilingual information.

The format changed last July, but still says "Certificate" on it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/629841/dvsa-vt20-mot-test-certificate.pdf

Wig

Tarambor wrote: »

And if you actually read what you posted it says in "About this document" that "this is a receipt style certificate".

You forgot to include that word in blue. In other words it is a certificate in the style of a receipt. I'm not exactly sure what they mean by that,but maybe they mean because it is a normal A4 printed page like a lot of garage receipts these days.

It is nothing more than a receipt that you've had a MOT and the details of that MOT test.

Have to disagree with you on that, it is a certificate it says so at the top of the page.

AdrianC

The only changes that happened between a real-old-undisputed-certificate and now are that the paper changed from being pre-printed stationary to computer-printed at the time of issue (which makes it much easier to line boxes up) and that the primary record changed from being the sheet of paper to being a computer record.

I don't think many would argue either of those were retrograde.

uknick

Wig wrote: »

No, your insurance is still valid both for damage to your car and damage to other cars.

For your insurer to be able to withdraw cover they would have to prove that your car was not roadworthy and that the aspect of the unroadworthyness significantly led to or caused the accident.

So, you are driving a car with no MOT, with 4 tyres under the tread limit. You stop at a traffic lights, an uninsured driver hits into the back of your car.

If damaged...your insurer has to repair the damage
If damaged beyond repair your insurer has to pay you the value of your car - The value would include the lack of MOT and 4 bald tyres. So it would be a reduced value, but they would still have to pay you.

If you drive round a corner too fast and the road is wet and off you go...then the insurer is likely to withdraw cover because your tyres led to the accident.

Same scenario and the road is dry, I would say they cannot withdraw cover because slick tyres are better grip in the dry that treaded tyres. But you would still have a reduced value for the lack of MOT and 4 bald tyres.


There is something new about failed to declare the defect or condition at policy inception will lead to a reduced percentage payout equal to the increase in premium that would have applied if declared at policy inception... I am not familiar with this...perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment what would happen in my scenarios and other scenarios, particularly on damage to a 3rd party where you are deemed at fault, under this law.?

Is this your opinion or are you basing it on actual experience?

I can see why you say it as clause 10 in the policy is pretty vague because they use "may" with regard to whether they'll void the policy.

However, clause 5 clearly states you MUST have an MoT. But, then again, clause 5 doesn't make it clear if the MoT must be in place at inception of policy, or throughout the life of the policy.

dacouch

uknick wrote: »

Is this your opinion or are you basing it on actual experience?

I can see why you say it as clause 10 in the policy is pretty vague because they use "may" with regard to whether they'll void the policy.

However, clause 5 clearly states you MUST have an MoT. But, then again, clause 5 doesn't make it clear if the MoT must be in place at inception of policy, or throughout the life of the policy.

It is a fact that an Insurer cannot reduce or void your cover for lack of an MOT.

This is irrespective of what the Insurer writes in their policy about you must have an MOT.

An Insurer could deny a claim if the vehicle was UNROADWORTHY and the fact it was unroadworthy caused the accident. However it is upto the Insurer to prove the unroadworthyness and.

If your vehicle was written off and did not have an MOT, if the Insurer can prove the car would not have passed an MOT then they can reduce the write off value by upto 10%.

dacouch

It is because of people like this that this myth keeps going...

"Am I insured if I don't have road tax and an MoT?"

Answer

"Yes, you are insured - just not to drive or for the vehicle to be moved off your property. It would be covered for Fire and Theft only. Should the vehicle not be roadworthy, then your insurer may not pay out. Insurers will generally view the MoT as evidence of roadworthiness, but this is not always the case. Your insurer would still have to cover you for third party risk under the Road Traffic Act 1979, but they could seek their outlay if you have failed to follow the terms and conditions of your contract"

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/93781/am-i-insured-if-i-don-t-have-road-tax-and-an-mot-

Aretnap

uknick wrote: »

Is this your opinion or are you basing it on actual experience?

I can see why you say it as clause 10 in the policy is pretty vague because they use "may" with regard to whether they'll void the policy.

However, clause 5 clearly states you MUST have an MoT. But, then again, clause 5 doesn't make it clear if the MoT must be in place at inception of policy, or throughout the life of the policy.

The general rule is that if you breach the terms of your policy an insurer can only use that as grounds to refuse a claim if the breach contributed to the loss that led to the claim.

So for example, if your homie insurance has a clause that said you had to lock your doors when you left the house they could refuse a claim for a burglary that happened while the house was left unlocked. But they couldn't refuse, say, a subsidence claim just because they found out that you didn't always lock your door when you went out.

Or if your car insurance has a clause that said the car must be roadworthy and you had no working headlights then they could refuse a claim caused by you driving into something in the dark, but not for an accident that happened in daylight.

In the case of a clause requiring you too have an MOT, the lack of a piece of paper could never by itself cause an accident, so the insurer could never refuse a claim solely because you had no MOT. They might be able to refuse a claim if your car had a defect that would have been picked up by an MOT and that defect caused or contributed to the accident. It would be up to them to prove that has happened.