Advice Sought for MOT / Insurance Problem

Saltrams

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to offer advice and opinion about my query. I’m still stuck in Australia so this is moot point for a while yet!

Saltrams

”Without an MOT the insurance is invalid. 

Where did you get that information?”

@MEM62 just one of those things one thinks one knows. I’m quite prepared to be wrong.

paul_c123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919599#Comment_81919599

Its too vague to say "with a current MoT". There's about 10 exceptions which allows you to drive a car on the road without MoT, and of course some vehicles simply don't need MoT at all (those under 3 years old and compliant historic vehicles, for example). In all cases, where someone thought it said "need an MoT" its turned out the actual wording is more, and covers these exemptions. Or just doesn't exist anyway.

And to be clear, the OP can use one of these exemptions.

TooManyPoints

The law requires a vehicle over three years of age requires an MOT…

As I have said, it is not an insurer’s job to enforce road traffic law. But they do need to comply with s11 of the Insurance Act. This says they cannot repudiate liability where non-compliance with a policy condition could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred. The lack of an MoT certificate does not increase their risk.

….all the ombudsman has done is rule in a particular case.

Not quite. I provided five “particular cases” where the ruling was the same. I could have provided many more because, unsurprisingly, I could not find a single case where the Ombudsman had ruled to the contrary in the same or similar circumstances. If you can find one, please cite it.

This is not about vehicle being in a roadworthy condition (which, along with the requirement for VED, you seem to have surreptitiously conjoined). It is specifically about a valid MoT.

That said, insurers cannot repudiate liability even where an unroadworthy vehicle is involved (s148 of the Road Traffic Act addresses that). But they may, in those circumstances, attempt to reclaim their outlay from the policyholder (again provided by s148).

I don’t know what aspects of insurance you offer advice on, but if I were you I would steer well clear of motoring matters. Not only are you wrong on this issue, but you stubbornly refuse to accept that you are, despite overwhelming and unequivocal evidence. If your argument is to succeed, you need to rebut that evidence. Instead you repeat the same mantra that “insurers can and do impose conditions.” We all know they can. But it seems only some of us know that any conditions they impose must be enforceable. In that respect you are no different to the “bloke in the pub” or the “bloke on the internet.”

It is important because the OP in this thread has enough to worry about without fretting that his insurance could be invalid because his MoT has expired. Hopefully he has been wise enough to ignore your claims, but you are adding to his worries by continually insisting that is a possibility. Plainly and simply, it isn’t.

Saltrams

@TooManyPoints Thank you so much for your trouble and for your compassion about my stress levels; I’m very grateful.

Mildly_Miffed

The plural of anecdote is not data.

We travelled the continent in a camper van for a year and a half about a decade ago. And, yes, that does mean the MOT ran out six months before we returned to the UK…

Zero issues, across about six or eight countries in that time.

On the day of our arrival back to the UK, we had pre-booked a test, 150 miles away from the post across some of the UK's busiest trunk routes. No issues.

A few years before that, I lost track of MOT expiry date on my daily-use car, and covered about 15k miles across six months before realising I couldn't renew the tax. Again, issues were not had.

MEM62

just one of those things one thinks one knows. I’m quite prepared to be wrong.

@Saltrams It is not the case. No MOT does not automatically invalidate insurance.

TooManyPoints

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81921322#Comment_81921322

And that is true, even if the insurers have policy condition that a valid MoT must be held. Unless, of course, they can show that the lack of an MoT certificate contributed towards the losses they have been asked to make good - a task with which they may struggle.