We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Advice Sought for MOT / Insurance Problem
Comments
-
You asked the question so what is your feasible solution?
0 -
No idea - I was paid (and still am at times) to look for problems with proposals - it was and is up to others to find the solution. Personally I would not take my car.
1 -
Documentation?
AFAIK you don't have to carry your MOT cert in the EU. I may be wrong - I've never taken an old car abroad.
0 -
I'd agree here - you alerted the OP to a matter that might be an additional consideration. The OP is equally as capable of researching the rules for driving through Italy and France as you are. Indeed, if the OP does their own research, the OP is obtaining information first-hand rather than any one else's paraphrasing of the rules. If the OP does that research and finds elements unclear then the OP can ask the forum to help interpret the rules. Given it would be the OP that stands to benefit from the time expended to research the rules, it seems odd to me that anyone (I note it was not the OP) thinks a.n.other should invest that time to do the research.
As for the final comment "I would not take my car", I understand the OP already has their car in Italy so not taking it is no longer an option.
2 -
Nope, only your insurance and V5C are required (at least in France). From everything I've read it would appear that there is no problem driving back to the UK for a pre-booked MOT appointment. If there is something obviously wrong with your car like a bald tyre that would fail an MOT then it could be picked up if you were stopped in France/Italy as being unsafe but that's not related to the lack of MOT.
Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.1 -
Without an MOT the insurance is invalid.
Where did you get that information?
0 -
Perhaps people need to start reading the small print on their insurance policies.
I have said it before Insurance Companies can and do impose conditions. When they don't pay out it is no good saying I read on the internet - they will reply that is not what their policy says.
0 -
It was explained on this thread why your understanding of that is incorrect:
Insurers cannot impose policy conditions that are unreasonable and nor can they do so when it is contrary to the law. Insisting on a valid MoT is both. There is adequate confirmation of that provided within that thread.
I provided no less than five rulings by the Financial Ombudsman on the issue, each involving different circumstances and spread over a number of years between 2014 and 2024. Also cited was the ‘Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook’ (ICOBS’), the Insurance Act of 2015 (s11) and the Road Traffic Act, (s148).
In particular, the Insurance Act could not be more clear:
(2)If a loss occurs, and the term has not been complied with, the insurer may not rely on the non-compliance to exclude, limit or discharge its liability under the contract for the loss if the insured satisfies subsection (3).
(3)The insured satisfies this subsection if it shows that the non-compliance with the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.
All you have given us is “Insurance Companies can and do impose conditions.” Indeed they can. They could say that the driver must be wearing a blazer and a blue cravat. But I don’t think they’d succeed in denying liability if he wasn’t.
2 -
It is not an unreasonable condition for an insurance company to require a vehicle to be taxed and in a roadworthy condition if it is over three years old with a current MOT. An MOT is documented evidence that the vehicle has been inspected and is considered so.
Without an MOT then they can reasonably claim that yoe insured has failed to meet the conditions of the policy.
You can argue the toss for ever and ever but all the ombudsman has done is rule in a particular case. The law requires a vehicle over three years of age requires an MOT certificate so why shouls an insurance company not do so? They are the ones carrying the risk.
Along the same lines I received a telephone call this morning from someone who is on a cruise round the Med. He had received a telephone call from a client asking for documentary proof that a company was complying with particular regulations - a multi thousands pound contract was at stake. I was asked to find the proof. The insurance company knew the company had it but required to see it - no different to an MOT certificate - If you cannot produce it the there are consequences.
1 -
---X---
It is not an unreasonable condition for an insurance company to require a vehicle to be taxed and in a roadworthy condition if it is over three years old with a current MOT. An MOT is documented evidence that the vehicle has been inspected and is considered so.
---X---
A current valid MOT test certificate only means that a vehicle was in a safe/roadworthy condition when it was tested.
Not having a current valid MOT test certificate doesn't mean that a vehicle is not safe/roadworthy.
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards