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

lisyloo

I thought that too.

I suggest you read the whole thread to get the picture.
Although it isn't crystal clear, because insurance companies will make a judgement if you have an accident.

Joey122

Quentin wrote: »

No-one has claimed not to have paid their road tax have they?

You suggested the OP hadn't, but you were wrong - you only need an MOT to buy the tax!

I have road tax

Thanks everyone who replied - The insurnce company has admitted liabaility

raskazz

chappers wrote: »

No but you are talking in insurance speak to explain a phenomenon/occurance that does actually happen.

I can assure you from fact that I know of two cases where an insurer covered damage to a third party, but not to the insured vehicle ,citing lack of MOT as the reason.The mechanics behind the process are pretty irrelevant.

That might be the case. But you are only talking about unsubstantiated examples. I am talking in general (and verifiable) principles, and indeed I am posting them so that people who read this thread will not suffer from unfairly rejected claims such as the ones that you cite!

If the insurer did reject the claims you mention on grounds of lack of MOT but still indemnified the third party, then either:

• If the circumstances of the claim were unrelated to unroadworthiness then they breached FSA rules by rejecting a claim due to breach of condition despite the breach being unconnected with the circumstances of the claim.

• Or if the circumstances of the claim were related to unroadworthiness then the insurer has paid out a third-party claim that it should not have paid out for under the terms of the policy. Hence they don't know what they are doing and will incur unnecessarily high claims costs. In any case lack of MOT alone is insufficient evidence on which to argue breach of the roadworthiness condition - as pointed out quite a few times, lack of MOT does not mean that a car is unroadworthy.

Whereas you seem to be scaremongering, I am posting verifiable information so that Moneysavers can use their own judgement as to what risks they are willing to take, and can use that information to challenge any unfair repudiation by an insurer, which I believe is more in the spirit of this website.

lisyloo

I am posting verifiable information so that Moneysavers can use their own judgement as to what risks they are willing to take, and can use that information to challenge any unfair repudiation by an insurer

Thanks for your efforts.

blossom30

Quentin wrote: »

No-one has claimed not to have paid their road tax have they?

You suggested the OP hadn't, but you were wrong - you only need an MOT to buy the tax!

I am most definitely correct when I say you need insurance documents and mot certificate to obtain road tax . You can purchase online now with D.V.L.A and that is because insurance, m.o.t are all held on a central database and are easily checked against the car reg no. Have a nice day shrewdal

Quentin

That is definitely correct.

All this started when you originally wrote:

If the op did not have a current m.o.t certifcate then how can the road tax be valid

You do NOT need a current MOT for the road tax to be valid, you only (as was pointed out to you, which you now seem to accept) need a current MOT when you buy the tax.

JimmyTheWig

But even if the OPs insurance was invalid, they don't need to claim on their own insurance? Surely it's the other guy's insurance that is relevant. Assuming his insurance is ok then there can't be a problem, can there?
If the other guy hit your brick wall then his insurance would pay up to fix your brick wall - even though your brick wall has neither MOT or insurance.

lisyloo

But even if the OPs insurance was invalid, they don't need to claim on their own insurance?

If liability is 100% one-sided
AND
the other party is insured
AND
their insurer accepts liability then yes.

In many cases it's not quite so easy to establish liability.

Quentin

lisyloo wrote: »

In many cases it's not quite so easy to establish liability.

Usually no problem with rear end shunts.

(And all your other provisos have been confirmed by the OP)

lisyloo

Usually no problem with rear end shunts

I agree with you in this particular case.
However I think the thread was often dicsussing the situation in general.