Someone Shunted Me From Behind - I have no MOT - Forgot to renew it!!!

raskazz

katiekittykat wrote: »

Source?????

See this very recent thread for a fuller explanation:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=900153

katiekittykat

With my insurance I am not covered if i have no MOT - i assumed all insurerers were the same.

katiekittykat

I was under the impression that:

That a condition of having insurance was that the car must have a valid MOT. Your insurance policy wording that your car must be 'roadworthy' sort of implies that, as the accepted test of roadworthyness, in law at least, is a current MOT. !

lisyloo

With my insurance I am not covered if i have no MOT

Hi Katie - It sounds like your insurance may contravenethe Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (can you name and shame them please).
Don't assume that all companies are legally correct as sometimes they aren't.

Having an MOT and roadworthiness are not necessarily the same thing (although often will be).

You ARE legally allowed to drive a car without an MOT if it's
to a booked MOT
or
from a failed MOT for repairs

If challenged I think your insurer would have to pay out if there was an accident and you were legally driving without an MOT and the accident was not related to the MOT failure. They may have terms in there to cover themselves which may be unfair and unenforceable or it's possible you have slightly mis-interpreted what they meant.

I suggest you read the thread that Raskazz pointed out although I admit it's quite confusing.

*MF*

raskazz wrote: »

See this very recent thread for a fuller explanation:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=900153

@ katiekittykat ... the explanations and source for raskazz' comments are worth reading - because he is correct in what he is saying.

Hope these two examples help:

1) Your car passes its MOT in June, three months later all 4 tyres are below the legal limit - you skid and crash - despite having a current MOT - the insurer can reject the claim as the car is unroadworthy.

2) You fail the MOT because there are two light bulbs not working. You take the car to the MOT testing station for a re-test - while it is parked outside, the car is written off by a hit and run driver. The Insurer would pay the claim - because there is no relationship between not having a current MOT and the accident.

katiekittykat

These are all back and to the garage for an MOT though - the OP's MOT expired in August last year!!!! So surely he would not be covered?

katiekittykat

lisyloo wrote: »

Hi Katie - It sounds like your insurance may contravenethe Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (can you name and shame them please).
Don't assume that all companies are legally correct as sometimes they aren't.

Having an MOT and roadworthiness are not necessarily the same thing (although often will be).

You ARE legally allowed to drive a car without an MOT if it's
to a booked MOT
or
from a failed MOT for repairs

If challenged I think your insurer would have to pay out if there was an accident and you were legally driving without an MOT and the accident was not related to the MOT failure. They may have terms in there to cover themselves which may be unfair and unenforceable or it's possible you have slightly mis-interpreted what they meant.

I suggest you read the thread that Raskazz pointed out although I admit it's quite confusing.

I sort of understand now!

*MF*

raskazz post on the other thread leads you to the FSA rules for how an Insurer may or may not reject a claim - any claim - not just car insurance - and put in non legal jargon the reason for the rejection (other than fraud) has to be fair and reasonable - and put as simply as I can - it has to have a direct bearing on the claim.

Having or not having an MOT - may or may not have a relationship with the claim.

I used the MOT test station as one example - but say the OP's car had been set on fire by vandals - wherever and whenever - I hold that the Insurers would pay - whether it had an MOT or not - they might argue, but in the end I think they would pay.

PS: Nothing in what i am saying is a support for not having a valid MOT, ok, lol.

katiekittykat

*MF* wrote: »

raskazz post on the other thread leads you to the FSA rules for how an Insurer may or may not reject a claim - any claim - not just car insurance - and put in non legal jargon the reason for the rejection (other than fraud) has to be fair and reasonable - and put as simply as I can - it has to have a direct bearing on the claim.

Having or not having an MOT - may or may not have a relationship with the claim.

I used the MOT test station as one example - but say the OP's car had been set on fire by vandals - wherever and whenever - I hold that the Insurers would pay - whether it had an MOT or not - they might argue, but in the end I think they would pay.

PS: Nothing in what i am saying is a support for not having a valid MOT, ok, lol.

Thanks for explaining

xx

lisyloo

the OP's MOT expired in August last year!!!! So surely he would not be covered?

There is a difference between not having the correct paperwork (beareaucratic issue) and not maintaining you car (safety issue).

If the OP simply forgot and it is not in anyway related to the accident then the insurers do not get off the hook.
If the car had not been maintained correctly and there was a roadworthiness issue that led to any accident e.g. failed brakes or poor tyres, then the insurer who have a valid reason to reject the claim.

Like MF, I am not condoning forgetting the MOT but it doesn't automatically mean that the car was in a bad condition.
The safety issues are seperate from having the correct paperwork.

The OP could probably be prosecuted for driving without a valid MOT but that's a totally seperate issue from the insurance.