BX Meteor wrote:The interesting thing is, when you think about it, Plod coud have called my insurance company and asked if the car was covered with expired MOT, and if not, then they could preumably have taken the car off me .....
Contrary to popular belief your car is still covered on insurance without an MOT, an MOT is only an indication of the condition of the car at the time of test as written on the back of the mot cert somewhere. I once had a Mercedes 230E written off after I had accidentally let my MOT lapse, I was panicking thinking I was going to be thousands out of pocket until my brother who is a senior claims adviser for Prudential/Churchill let me know an insurance company cannot void your cover due to lack of MOT.
I think it depends on the insurance company. I once wanted to take a car for an MOT and emailed an insruance company that I use, saying I wamted temp cover to take the car for an MOT. They replied that they did not cover cars without an MOT. To check, I emailed again from a different email account, asking for temp cover to take a car for a test drive that was SORN and MOT'ed, and they replied with a quote.
EDIT 1: Take a theoretical example. You renew your car tax for 12 months. Next month your MOT is due, but you forget. Month after that your insurance is up for renewal, you get a letter, and you renew it. You are now driving a car with tax but no adequate insurance, because you renewed your insurance when the car did not have MOT. I would expect that this definitely invalidates your insurance with most isureres, because you did not have MOT at the time you took out the insurance. Although this was not the case for me when stopped by Plod, Plod did not check this out.
EDIT 2: see "Why you need an MOT certificate" http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ow ... DG_4022108
under the bullet points:
"Even in the above circumstances you may still be prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle if it doesn’t comply with various regulations affecting its construction and use. Your car insurance may also be invalid."
Note last sentence
My Cars: Land Rover Discovery Series 1 200tdi 3 door Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5 2020 Fiat Panda cross 4x4 twin air.
x 27
Postby Defender110 »
Not complying with the construction and use act is refering to a modified vehicle which you have to declare to your insurance and not doing so is grounds to void your insurance, Any insurance company can also refuse you insurance on any grounds they choose but no MOT is not grounds to void your insurance. From the same page you have quoted;
'The MOT certificate only relates to the condition of testable items at the time of the test and should not be regarded as:
evidence of their condition at any other time
evidence of the general mechanical condition of the vehicle
evidence that the vehicle fully complies with all aspects of the law on vehicle construction and use'
As an MOT cannot by law be used as ''evidence of their condition at any other time'' it cannot be used to qualify the car for insurance or void insurance. As I have already stated I do know this from firsthand experience.
Kevan
1997 Mercedes C230 W202
2003 Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5 - Daily driver / hobby days and camping.
1993 Land Rover Discovery 200tdi Series 1 3 door - in need of TLC
2020 Fiat Panda 4x4 Cross Twin Air.
I can see a situation though, if your policy document specifically states that the vehicle must have a current MOT for the insurance to be valid, then you would not be covered. Some insurance policies MAY have this get out clause; I don't know but this could be what the Direct.gov link is referring to.
But as Kevan suggests, if your policy doesn't specifically exclude driving without a current MOT, I'm certain it would not stand up in a court of law if it was claimed that the insurance was invalid.
Defender110 wrote:
As I have already stated I do know this from firsthand experience.
And as I have already stated, I know of one insurance company that says the opposite.
Here is their exact reply to me by email:
"Thank you for your email.
Unfortunately we will not be able to offer cover on your vehicle if it does not have an MOT Certificate.
You will be required to seek insurance elsewhere.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused."
And as I also said, when I was stopped by Plod without MOT, they did not call my insurance compnay, but there is the possibility that if they had checked, my insurance company (the same company as sent me the email above) might have said the same thing to Plod over the phone.
My Cars: Land Rover Discovery Series 1 200tdi 3 door Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5 2020 Fiat Panda cross 4x4 twin air.
x 27
Postby Defender110 »
BX Meteor wrote:
Defender110 wrote:
Here is their exact reply to me by email:
"Thank you for your email.
Unfortunately we will not be able to offer cover on your vehicle if it does not have an MOT Certificate.
You will be required to seek insurance elsewhere.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused."
.
Yes I have tried to explain this to you, any insurance company can initially decline to offer you insurance for any reason they choose but they cannot cover you and later declare your insurance void if you haven't got an MOT. If an insurance company do specifie you need an mot for your car before they will insure it the onus is on them to ensure you have. If you had an accident without an MOT and they as the insuring company hadn't checked your car was MOT'd they would not be able to refuse your claim. An insurance company can refuse a claim for many many reasons but they cannot use the exscuse you do not have an MOT as a reason to void your insurance for reasons I have previously stated. They can send an engineer out who can declare your car as not fit for the road if he finds a major fault with your vehicle (pre-accident) and then refuse liability, they can also refuse liability if your car has been heavile modified so as to no longer meet the Construction and Use act, they can also declare your car is of less value without an MOT and offer you a lesser settlement but they can NEVER refuse a claim simply because you did not have a current MOT, neither can a Police officer ever charge you with no insurance because you do not have an MOT. You can wish it to be so as much as you like but it simly isn't the case.
Kevan
1997 Mercedes C230 W202
2003 Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5 - Daily driver / hobby days and camping.
1993 Land Rover Discovery 200tdi Series 1 3 door - in need of TLC
2020 Fiat Panda 4x4 Cross Twin Air.
Defender110 wrote:
Yes I have tried to explain this to you, any insurance company can initially decline to offer you insurance for any reason they choose but they cannot cover you and later declare your insurance void if you haven't got an MOT. If an insurance company do specifie you need an mot for your car before they will insure it the onus is on them to ensure you have. If you had an accident without an MOT and they as the insuring company hadn't checked your car was MOT'd they would not be able to refuse your claim. An insurance company can refuse a claim for many many reasons but they cannot use the exscuse you do not have an MOT as a reason to void your insurance for reasons I have previously stated. They can send an engineer out who can declare your car as not fit for the road if he finds a major fault with your vehicle (pre-accident) and then refuse liability, they can also refuse liability if your car has been heavile modified so as to no longer meet the Construction and Use act, they can also declare your car is of less value without an MOT and offer you a lesser settlement but they can NEVER refuse a claim simply because you did not have a current MOT, neither can a Police officer ever charge you with no insurance because you do not have an MOT. You can wish it to be so as much as you like but it simly isn't the case.
And as Mat tried to explain to you (similar to what I also put originally and which you do now seem to concede hidden in all those words) .....
mat_fenwick wrote:I can see a situation though, if your policy document specifically states that the vehicle must have a current MOT for the insurance to be valid, then you would not be covered. Some insurance policies MAY have this get out clause; I don't know but this could be what the Direct.gov link is referring to.
Roverman wrote:Did anyone buy this car by the way?????
Yeah some lucky bloke got an absolute bargain, was it anyone in this club ?
Defender110 wrote:
Yes I have tried to explain this to you, any insurance company can initially decline to offer you insurance for any reason they choose but they cannot cover you and later declare your insurance void if you haven't got an MOT. If an insurance company do specifie you need an mot for your car before they will insure it the onus is on them to ensure you have. If you had an accident without an MOT and they as the insuring company hadn't checked your car was MOT'd they would not be able to refuse your claim. An insurance company can refuse a claim for many many reasons but they cannot use the exscuse you do not have an MOT as a reason to void your insurance for reasons I have previously stated. They can send an engineer out who can declare your car as not fit for the road if he finds a major fault with your vehicle (pre-accident) and then refuse liability, they can also refuse liability if your car has been heavile modified so as to no longer meet the Construction and Use act, they can also declare your car is of less value without an MOT and offer you a lesser settlement but they can NEVER refuse a claim simply because you did not have a current MOT, neither can a Police officer ever charge you with no insurance because you do not have an MOT. You can wish it to be so as much as you like but it simly isn't the case.
And as Mat tried to explain to you (similar to what I also put originally and which you do now seem to concede hidden in all those words) .....
mat_fenwick wrote:I can see a situation though, if your policy document specifically states that the vehicle must have a current MOT for the insurance to be valid, then you would not be covered. Some insurance policies MAY have this get out clause; I don't know but this could be what the Direct.gov link is referring to.
Roverman wrote:Did anyone buy this car by the way?????
Yeah some lucky bloke got an absolute bargain, was it anyone in this club ?
And whoever it was also got a car with an MoT until September 2012.
probably that minor scrape is putting some people off ....and I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but all types of car on ebay are generally struggling to sell at the moment
probably that minor scrape is putting some people off ....and I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but all types of car on ebay are generally struggling to sell at the moment
but amazingly that very dirty white one with "8000" miles sat on a trailer which apparently according to the person who inspected was very worn made over 400 quid
