Does no MOT invalidate insurance?

TooManyPoints

Especially as it seems that, with the best will in the world, nobody here is able to provide the perfect/correct answer. Including me.

I think the correct answer has been given (supported by evidence). It would be for an insurer to show that lack of an MoT contributed towards the damage/injury that they are refusing to cover. They may be able to do that if the condition of the vehicle was such that it caused or contributed towards the accident and that condition prevented or would have prevented it passing an MoT test. But then s148 of the RTA would kick in. But if the vehicle was roadworthy (such that it would pass the test) they could not as simply use the absence of an MoT certificate to provide them with a get-out clause. As well as that, as mentioned upthread, you can drive to an MoT testing station without an MoT (providing you have pre-booked a test). According to the AA in such circumstances the driver would be driving uninsured - a contention that is plainly absurd.

Note that the above only applies to insurance for Third Party liabilities as required by the RTA. 

force_ten1

as a real world example 

last year my car was parked up outside my house and was hit by a car that had insurance but no tax and no mot and l went on this same rollercoaster will l or wont l get paid 

at the end of the day my car was repaired and my insurance company didn't even take the excess off me they were that confident they would be fully reimbursed. and then three months later l had an e mail saying that the case was closed and my no claims was not affected. l still have to declare the incident and fully understand that it may have an impact on my premium gong forward  

but the car that caused the accident was not taxed or mot'd and my repairs were covered by their insurance 

the person that was driving the car at the time of the accident got nothing and the wreck is still sat on their garden a year later  

oldagetraveller1

My 61 years old Classic Car is MoT exempt and is declared as such with DVLA.

i.e. it doesn't have a valid MoT.

That totally misleading AA statement makes a nonsense of this situation.

I do have Classic insurance with no mention of MoTs in the policy document. However, it does state that the car must be maintained in a safe and roadworthy condition. As must any road vehicle, MoT'd or not.

ontheroad1970

diystarter7 said:

user1977 said:

diystarter7 said:

Aretnap said:

diystarter7 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The answer is... it depends on their policy wordings. 

Most mainstream insurers dont even mention MOT in their policywordings and so the only impact it can have is the devaluation of their own vehicle when considering a total loss.

Some budget providers do have clauses in the Own Damage section saying that no MOT means that section is void however that doesn't impact your claim against them as that's the Liability/Third Party section.

There are some bottle of the barrel providers who say that they can use no MOT to cancel or void the whole policy... https://quote.onecallinsurance.co.uk/existing_customers/website-documents/getDocument.php?doc_name=1652090033ERS.pdf&_ga=2.106959554.1994661735.1679829765-1759926225.1679829765 for example

Others will point out that the Financial Ombudsman does fairly often uphold complaints about claims being rejected for no MOT even if that's what the policy states as long as there wasn't a defect with the vehicle that caused the claim and that an MOT would have spotted however that is rather moot as a third party cannot go to the Ombudsman.

Even if the policy was cancelled the person still had a valid certificate of insurance at the time of the accident which would make that insurer the RTA insurer. Some insurers admit their RTA obligations straight away and deal with the claim, others make you go through the whole process of establishing them as such. At the end of the day as long as you are letting your insurers deal with it and not attempting to claim directly it's just a matter of duration. 

Hi

Polite heads up

From the AA site

Is car insurance valid without an MOT?

No, not having a valid MOT certificate invalidates your car insurance. So if you drive without an MOT, you're driving without insurance too.The penalties for driving while uninsured include a £300 fine and up to 6 points on your licence.The police also have the power to seize, and in some cases destroy, a vehicle that's being driven uninsured. And if the case goes to court you could get an unlimited fine and also be disqualified from driving.
https://www.theaa.com/mot/advice/driving-without-an-mot#insurance


Thanks

You will no doubt be shocked to learn that search engine optimisation text written by the intern and dumped on websites purely for the purpose of attracting Google clicks doesn't always tell the whole story.

So the AA wesite inc the full link I posted is total rubbish, is it?

Essentially, yes, it's a misleadingly alarmist generalisation to say that "not having a valid MOT certificate invalidates your car insurance".

It might do - if that is what your policy says (and even then, it may be arguable whether it's enforceable by the insurer).

Have you checked your policy? I've read mine (which is with Admiral) and there is no such condition.

So, will you be contacting the AA and telling them that and ensuring they revise the " misleadingly alarmist generalisation " information that I am guessing thousands read every year?

I would have contacted them but I'm not aware of the inforamtion source you have.

So please let us know as its not good for the AA to do something like as you have said

This subject has come up on numerous occasions with the same answer.  If someone hits you and they were delivering pizzas but didn't have correct cover, their insurance company would still fulfil their obligations to the third party.  This is despite the first party driver being uninsured.

It would be helpful if you would do more research before telling people including the one you 'corrected' who has worked in insurance that they are incorrect.  Just because a poster posts often doesn't mean they are accurate.  

ontheroad1970

diystarter7 said:

Hi

@DullGreyGuy
@Car_54

Cheers to both, must sign off as I don't drink and post.



PS: I will look up the RAC site next time

RAC is no different, and certainly no better.  They have a letter they suggest to send out to fight speeding fines which isn't wholly accurate.  

Car_54

ontheroad1970 said:

diystarter7 said:

Hi

@DullGreyGuy
@Car_54

Cheers to both, must sign off as I don't drink and post.



PS: I will look up the RAC site next time

RAC is no different, and certainly no better.  They have a letter they suggest to send out to fight speeding fines which isn't wholly accurate.  

Indeed, and also no different in terms of "representing the motorist". 

RAC is currently owned mainly by the Singapore government's sovereign wealth fund and a Luxembourg-based investment company, neither of which is likely to have the UK motorist as a high priority.

diystarter7

DullGreyGuy said:

diystarter7 said:

Hi

@DullGreyGuy
@Car_54

Cheers to both, must sign off as I don't drink and post.



PS: I will look up the RAC site next time

Drink posting is the best... frees you to say what you really think without risking your job -v- drink replying to work emails.

There are loopholes in the law left, right and centre. Almost all mainstream outlets provide information based on a mix of the lawful and the moral. You wont find any mainstream with headline news saying "dont worry about your MOT, your insurers will still have to cover you" as that broadly encourages people to break the law about needing an MOT. Not all will go to the other extremes of saying insurance "will not" cover you... most are more reasonable and either say "may not" or are simply silent on the matter.

Hi

Sorry, not for me as I often say what I feel and how I say it. People often tell me I'm very, very lovels and friendly when I have had a few.

Yes, the loopsholes are there and with the advent of the net, almost anything and everything does end up with a loophole.

Best practice, keep your suv/care/vehicle road legal.

Thanks

Flight3287462

diystarter7 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

diystarter7 said:

Hi

@DullGreyGuy
@Car_54

Cheers to both, must sign off as I don't drink and post.



PS: I will look up the RAC site next time

Drink posting is the best... frees you to say what you really think without risking your job -v- drink replying to work emails.

There are loopholes in the law left, right and centre. Almost all mainstream outlets provide information based on a mix of the lawful and the moral. You wont find any mainstream with headline news saying "dont worry about your MOT, your insurers will still have to cover you" as that broadly encourages people to break the law about needing an MOT. Not all will go to the other extremes of saying insurance "will not" cover you... most are more reasonable and either say "may not" or are simply silent on the matter.

Hi

Sorry, not for me as I often say what I feel and how I say it. People often tell me I'm very, very lovels and friendly when I have had a few.

Yes, the loopsholes are there and with the advent of the net, almost anything and everything does end up with a loophole.

Best practice, keep your suv/care/vehicle road legal.

Thanks

Is Mal Munro your better half?  Asking for a friend.

noitsnotme

diystarter7 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

diystarter7 said:

Aretnap said:

diystarter7 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The answer is... it depends on their policy wordings. 

Most mainstream insurers dont even mention MOT in their policywordings and so the only impact it can have is the devaluation of their own vehicle when considering a total loss.

Some budget providers do have clauses in the Own Damage section saying that no MOT means that section is void however that doesn't impact your claim against them as that's the Liability/Third Party section.

There are some bottle of the barrel providers who say that they can use no MOT to cancel or void the whole policy... https://quote.onecallinsurance.co.uk/existing_customers/website-documents/getDocument.php?doc_name=1652090033ERS.pdf&_ga=2.106959554.1994661735.1679829765-1759926225.1679829765 for example

Others will point out that the Financial Ombudsman does fairly often uphold complaints about claims being rejected for no MOT even if that's what the policy states as long as there wasn't a defect with the vehicle that caused the claim and that an MOT would have spotted however that is rather moot as a third party cannot go to the Ombudsman.

Even if the policy was cancelled the person still had a valid certificate of insurance at the time of the accident which would make that insurer the RTA insurer. Some insurers admit their RTA obligations straight away and deal with the claim, others make you go through the whole process of establishing them as such. At the end of the day as long as you are letting your insurers deal with it and not attempting to claim directly it's just a matter of duration. 

Hi

Polite heads up

From the AA site

Is car insurance valid without an MOT?

No, not having a valid MOT certificate invalidates your car insurance. So if you drive without an MOT, you're driving without insurance too.The penalties for driving while uninsured include a £300 fine and up to 6 points on your licence.The police also have the power to seize, and in some cases destroy, a vehicle that's being driven uninsured. And if the case goes to court you could get an unlimited fine and also be disqualified from driving.
https://www.theaa.com/mot/advice/driving-without-an-mot#insurance


Thanks

You will no doubt be shocked to learn that search engine optimisation text written by the intern and dumped on websites purely for the purpose of attracting Google clicks doesn't always tell the whole story.

Hi

So the AA wesite inc the full link I posted is total rubbish, is it?

I thought the AA was a highly respected motroing organsation that is trusted by millions

Tnaks

Its worst case scenario focused on the first party.

The OP isnt the first party in this situation and you have to understand the motivation of promoting the worst case scenario to drive positive outcome rather than saying "buy from the likes of DL or Aviva and no MOT is barely an issue" 

Hi

I'm very aware of that and even stated it in an earlier post ie OP does not need to worry

The info from a respected source the AA  plus link was posted because a few of you were arguing about the mot status "invalidating" insyrance

As we both know, worst case scenario, thankfully OP is covered assuming they have at least car and or house insurance

Thnaks

I think they are as respected in the motoring industry as Halfords nowadays!

*edit* oh, looks like diystarter7 is on another enforced break from the forum!

SpudGunPaul

noitsnotme said:

diystarter7 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

diystarter7 said:

Aretnap said:

diystarter7 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The answer is... it depends on their policy wordings. 

Most mainstream insurers dont even mention MOT in their policywordings and so the only impact it can have is the devaluation of their own vehicle when considering a total loss.

Some budget providers do have clauses in the Own Damage section saying that no MOT means that section is void however that doesn't impact your claim against them as that's the Liability/Third Party section.

There are some bottle of the barrel providers who say that they can use no MOT to cancel or void the whole policy... https://quote.onecallinsurance.co.uk/existing_customers/website-documents/getDocument.php?doc_name=1652090033ERS.pdf&_ga=2.106959554.1994661735.1679829765-1759926225.1679829765 for example

Others will point out that the Financial Ombudsman does fairly often uphold complaints about claims being rejected for no MOT even if that's what the policy states as long as there wasn't a defect with the vehicle that caused the claim and that an MOT would have spotted however that is rather moot as a third party cannot go to the Ombudsman.

Even if the policy was cancelled the person still had a valid certificate of insurance at the time of the accident which would make that insurer the RTA insurer. Some insurers admit their RTA obligations straight away and deal with the claim, others make you go through the whole process of establishing them as such. At the end of the day as long as you are letting your insurers deal with it and not attempting to claim directly it's just a matter of duration. 

Hi

Polite heads up

From the AA site

Is car insurance valid without an MOT?

No, not having a valid MOT certificate invalidates your car insurance. So if you drive without an MOT, you're driving without insurance too.The penalties for driving while uninsured include a £300 fine and up to 6 points on your licence.The police also have the power to seize, and in some cases destroy, a vehicle that's being driven uninsured. And if the case goes to court you could get an unlimited fine and also be disqualified from driving.
https://www.theaa.com/mot/advice/driving-without-an-mot#insurance


Thanks

You will no doubt be shocked to learn that search engine optimisation text written by the intern and dumped on websites purely for the purpose of attracting Google clicks doesn't always tell the whole story.

Hi

So the AA wesite inc the full link I posted is total rubbish, is it?

I thought the AA was a highly respected motroing organsation that is trusted by millions

Tnaks

Its worst case scenario focused on the first party.

The OP isnt the first party in this situation and you have to understand the motivation of promoting the worst case scenario to drive positive outcome rather than saying "buy from the likes of DL or Aviva and no MOT is barely an issue" 

Hi

I'm very aware of that and even stated it in an earlier post ie OP does not need to worry

The info from a respected source the AA  plus link was posted because a few of you were arguing about the mot status "invalidating" insyrance

As we both know, worst case scenario, thankfully OP is covered assuming they have at least car and or house insurance

Thnaks

I think they are as respected in the motoring industry as Halfords nowadays!

*edit* oh, looks like diystarter7 is on another enforced break from the forum!

That's number 3. 🤣🤣🤣