FPN for not having valid MOT for 18yo

Lubylu31

Just wondering if someone could advise.

My 18yo daughter got caught with no MOT .. first car and it got overlooked she's been given a Fixed Penalty Notice which has been paid but my concern is does she need to advise her insurance company, her insurance is high enough being newly passed without get being penalized for a mistake.

Any help would be most grateful

m0bov

Having no MOT might mean invalid insurance, are you sure she is not being reported for that? I'd check with your, cough, I mean your daughters insurance.

foxy-stoat

Hopefully she has a valid MOT certificate now. I wouldnt inform the insurers at this stage, maybe at renewal but depends on the actual question that she would of been asked on the proposal form or by the adviser or the question online if done via the internet.

Always good to read the policy booklet though to see if the insurers spitulates that any new convictions, FPN's need to be confirmed as soon as possible or at renewal, for a young driver it may be different.

molerat

m0bov wrote: »

Having no MOT might mean invalid insurance, are you sure she is not being reported for that? I'd check with your, cough, I mean your daughters insurance.

Yet another old wives tale. No MOT is not grounds for invalidating insurance. Any insurance company that does that will find themselves on the FOS naughty step !

foxy-stoat

molerat wrote: »

Yet another old wives tale. No MOT is not grounds for invalidating insurance. Any insurance company that does that will find themselves on the FOS naughty step !

I thought that but its actually written into the AA Insurance policy wording, had to read the whole lot to find it though but its in there.

molerat

foxy-stoat wrote: »

I thought that but its actually written into the AA Insurance policy wording, had to read the whole lot to find it though but its in there.

In a complaint the FOS would find that an unfair term as they have done many times against many insurers.

foxy-stoat

molerat wrote: »

In a complaint the FOS would find that an unfair term as they have done many times against many insurers.

Good to know, not that I would knowingly drive my car around with no MOT. I know mistakes happen and dates get missed and all that.

TooManyPoints

Having no MOT might mean invalid insurance

,

I thought that but its actually written into the AA Insurance policy wording,

Then the AA needs to read Section 148.2(b) of the Road Traffic Act.

Insurers are not permitted to deny liability on a number of grounds. One of them is "The condition of the vehicle". There was a case a few years ago (cannot immediately find it) where an insurance company refused cover on the basis of no valid MoT. The court found against them, ruling that S148.2(b) (which states that "the condition of the vehicle" cannot be used to deny cover) stretched to there being no MoT in force. There reasoning was that since an MoT test is undertaken largely to determine the condition of the vehicle, denying cover because no MoT was in force was equivalent to denying cover due to the condition of the vehicle, and that is not allowed under S148.

There is in force (at least until the day after tomorrow and probably longer than that) an EU directive which extends the grounds on which cover cannot be denied even further than S148.

The above applies to the compulsory aspect of cover (i.e."Third Party") which drivers must have. It does not apply to damage to the policyholder's own vehicle covered under a comprehensive policy. Insurers may try to avoid liability on the grounds of no MoT then, though unless the lack of MoT contributed to the damage caused I think they may struggle in a court.

shaun_from_Africa

foxy-stoat wrote: »

I thought that but its actually written into the AA Insurance policy wording, had to read the whole lot to find it though but its in there.

AA policy document.

16.1.2 You must have also kept the Insured Car in an efficient and roadworthy condition, and you must have a valid Ministry of Transport (MOT) test certificate if required by law.

molerat wrote: »

In a complaint the FOS would find that an unfair term as they have done many times against many insurers.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/121011/DRN4756234.pdf

Mrs K complains that One Insurance Limited rejected a claim under her motor insurance policy for damage to her vehicle, because the vehicle did not have a valid MOT test certificate.

One Insurance says that Mrs K’s car was illegally on the road, as it required an MOT, and I would stress that I do not condone any failure to comply with relevant legal requirements.
However, with respect to the operation of the motor insurance policy, I have seen nothing to show that the condition of Mrs K’s car made it unroadworthy or contributed in any way to the
accident (or that it would not have passed an MOT had it been tested).
It is acknowledged that Mrs K was not at fault for the accident, given that the third party car hit her vehicle in the
rear.
I am therefore satisfied that the fact the vehicle had no MOT is not material to the circumstances of the accident. That means I do not consider it fair or reasonable for One Insurance to rely on this strict breach of the policy condition in order to decline the claim.

AdrianC

Lubylu31 wrote: »

My 18yo daughter got caught with no MOT .. first car and it got overlooked she's been given a Fixed Penalty Notice which has been paid but my concern is does she need to advise her insurance company

It's not an endorseable offence - she doesn't have points on her licence.

her insurance is high enough being newly passed without get being penalized for a mistake.

Then she needs to learn to keep on top of her basic personal admin. Not just about her car MOT/tax/insurance, but there's a lot of areas in life where letting things slip can come back to bite. She's 18, she's an adult, she's going to have to learn to live with the consequences of her mistakes. At least this is a lesson with very minimal consequences...

Shaun_of_the_Dead

TooManyPoints wrote: »

,


Then the AA needs to read Section 148.2(b) of the Road Traffic Act.

Insurers are not permitted to deny liability on a number of grounds. One of them is "The condition of the vehicle". There was a case a few years ago (cannot immediately find it) where an insurance company refused cover on the basis of no valid MoT. The court found against them, ruling that S148.2(b) (which states that "the condition of the vehicle" cannot be used to deny cover) stretched to there being no MoT in force. There reasoning was that since an MoT test is undertaken largely to determine the condition of the vehicle, denying cover because no MoT was in force was equivalent to denying cover due to the condition of the vehicle, and that is not allowed under S148.

There is in force (at least until the day after tomorrow and probably longer than that) an EU directive which extends the grounds on which cover cannot be denied even further than S148.

The above applies to the compulsory aspect of cover (i.e."Third Party") which drivers must have. It does not apply to damage to the policyholder's own vehicle covered under a comprehensive policy. Insurers may try to avoid liability on the grounds of no MoT then, though unless the lack of MoT contributed to the damage caused I think they may struggle in a court.

Interesting point but given comprehensive insurance is above what they're obliged to provide are you not bound by the contract you've entered into and agreed to have an mot?