Why is it not a MOT requirement to have vehicle tax?

Mildly_Miffed

There are many fails which do not render a car unroadworthy - rear seatbelts when those seats are unoccupied, 13-pin towbar electrics when there's no trailer, etc etc. There are situations where it's legal to drive without a current MOT.

VED is purely a financial matter, and in no way affects roadworthiness. There are situations where it's legal to drive without current VED.

Insurance usually requires you to keep the car in a roadworthy condition - as, indeed, does the law. There are many cars on the road which are in an UNroadworthy condition, but have a current MOT.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910159#Comment_81910159

VED won't even come up.

They may make more enquiries into the pre-accident condition of your vehicle because it has no MOT but the MOT itself won't be a deciding factor.

Now if your car was parked and unattended without an MOT and was hit by a passing vehicle then the roadworthiness won't be questioned as it wasnt in use at the time but the settlement when its written off will be less because of the lack of an MOT just like a buyer would have paid you less for a car with no valid MOT.

The same if a drunk driver passes out at traffic lights, the lights go green, the car behind drives forward hitting the stationary vehicle because they assumed it would be moving off the rear vehicle is still at fault for hitting a static car even if the driver of the car is prosecuted for drink driving.

paul_c123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910285#Comment_81910285

Can you do me a favour, take a photo of the terms of your insurance where it mentions MoT. Because you're incorrectly interpreting it. I don't want you to simply type it in because you might miss an important bit.

Aretnap

Can you do me a favour, take a photo of the terms of your insurance where it mentions MoT. Because you're incorrectly interpreting it. I don't want you to simply type it in because you might miss an important bit.

Nope. That would be impossible as the terms of my insurance don't mention MOT at all.

Some insurance policies do require you to have a valid MOT. The exact wording will vary from insure to insurer. They are all equally useless as a reason to decline a claim due to Section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015, as well as ICBOS and various Financial Ombudsman rulings.

What's your point?

paul_c123

I don't believe ANY insurance policy has "a term that says you have to have valid MoT". They all have some invariably more complex wording, which means the insurance is still valid, either irrespective of MoT, or when enjoying one of the exemptions from needing an MoT.

If you or anyone else can show the existence of this mythical term, please post the proof.

Aretnap

I don't believe ANY insurance policy has "a term that says you have to have valid MoT". They all have some invariably more complex wording, which means the insurance is still valid, either irrespective of MoT, or when enjoying one of the exemptions from needing an MoT.

If you or anyone else can show the existence of this mythical term, please post the proof.

Well obviously they usually say something along the lines of "must have a valid MOT if your car requires one", which covers the car less than three years old, or on the way to an MOT test. We can ignore those cases - the thread is about cars being driven illegally without a valid MOT.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you are interested in what different insurance policies say about the need for an MOT, it is not difficult to find examples. If you can't be bothered looking, neither can I.

paul_c123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81911112#Comment_81911112

I am pulling you up on spreading falsehoods relating to insurers insisting on the requirement for MoT (as in your previously quoted post). Your subsequent posts contradict what you said earlier. I think its for you to decide what you want to say, then provide proper proof. For clarity, I am not interested in what different insurance policies say, but I am keen to squash internet myths.

B0bbyEwing

Well since you can't agree, let's agree all agree on something then……

You can't both be right.

TooManyPoints

No, they are not both right.

Insurers cannot deny liability for lack of a valid MoT. Some might include that stipulation as a policy condition (though I’m not aware of any that do). If they do it shall have no effect.

Grey_Critic

Insurance companies can (and often do) make conditions so the requirement for a vehicle to be taxed and with a current MOT sounds quite reasonable. Legally you are required to tax, Insure and MOT a vehicle so why argue about it.

As far as I am aware the only time you can drive a vehicle on the public highway without a current MOT or VED is going to and from a pre-booked MOT.