|
|
| Author |
Message |
| LordShaftesbu... |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LordShaftesbu...
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| LordShaftesbu... |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LordShaftesbu...
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| P.addy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
P.addy
Formerly known as
P.
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| LordShaftesbu... |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LordShaftesbu...
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Islander |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Islander
World Chat Champion
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma : 
|
 Posted: 11:14 - 04 Sep 2012  Post subject: |
 |
|
I'd say that being the weasels they usually are, an insurance company may well use the fact that the vehicle doesn't have an MOT to dodge paying out in a claim. It's not a legal thing and I've only ever heard of a police officer advising that not having an MOT may invalidate your insurance.
It's up to the insurance company. Personally, I wouldn't give the buggers an inch  |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| P.addy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
P.addy
Formerly known as
P.
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Karma :
|
Posted: 11:32 - 04 Sep 2012  Post subject: |
|
|
An insurer once said to me on the phone that if I rode to the pre booked MOT and had an accident, they wouldn't pay out.
I asked why.
They said I shouldn't let my MOT lapse.
Then lied and said I work abroad for 9 months of the year and enjoy the bike when I return, if the MOT lapses while I'm abroad what do I do?
They said... use a trailer. 
I love insurers. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| neatbik |
This post is not being displayed .
|
neatbik
World Chat Champion
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Llama-Farmer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Llama-Farmer
World Chat Champion
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| map |
This post is not being displayed .
|
map
Mr Calendar
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
|
Posted: 12:03 - 04 Sep 2012  Post subject: |
|
|
The Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 143 requires you to have insurance. The RTA Section 164 says you need a licence. The RTA Section 165 allows the police to "require production of evidence of insurance or security and test certificates". However, Section 165A that says your vehicle may be seized only mentions a licence and the insurance.
Make of that what you will.
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger?  |
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 12:08 - 04 Sep 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben-B wrote: | I do know that insurance (including 3rd party) can be void if no MOT is present on the car |
How's that then? Your car can be stolen by a 14 year old and stacked into a 3rd party and your insurers will still pay out to them. If that happens more than 12 months after its last MOT, that suddenly absolves the insurers of the liability that they accept by providing insurance that satisfies the Road Traffic Act?
Insurers - or rather, individuals representing insurers - say a lot of things, as do Plod. But when push comes to shove, it'll go before the FOS and then a court, and they will look at the wording of the law, and of any contracts that you've entered into including their reasonableness.
I personally don't consider it reasonable for an insurer to try and avoid indemnifying you if the MOT's expired, particularly if you're on your way to or from a pre-booked MOT or to have remedial work done, and it won't bother me in the slightest when I take my out-of-MOT bikes in for one.
If insurers really can void policies on a whim like that, then they'd best get their ducks in a row with the DVLA because that means the only way to stay legal is to SORN a vehicle before the MOT expires and magically voids the insurance. Which makes a mockery of the statutory provisions for driving one to or from an MOT, doesn't it?
tl;dr version - until and unless it's been before a court, and ideally all the way up, it's just opinion, and we're each entitled to hold our own.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Llama-Farmer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Llama-Farmer
World Chat Champion
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Karma :
|
| Posted: 12:19 - 04 Sep 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rogerborg wrote: | | Ben-B wrote: | I do know that insurance (including 3rd party) can be void if no MOT is present on the car |
How's that then? Your car can be stolen by a 14 year old and stacked into a 3rd party and your insurers will still pay out to them. If that happens more than 12 months after its last MOT, that suddenly absolves the insurers of the liability that they accept by providing insurance that satisfies the Road Traffic Act?
Insurers - or rather, individuals representing insurers - say a lot of things, as do Plod. But when push comes to shove, it'll go before the FOS and then a court, and they will look at the wording of the law, and of any contracts that you've entered into including their reasonableness.
I personally don't consider it reasonable for an insurer to try and avoid indemnifying you if the MOT's expired, particularly if you're on your way to or from a pre-booked MOT or to have remedial work done, and it won't bother me in the slightest when I take my out-of-MOT bikes in for one.
If insurers really can void policies on a whim like that, then they'd best get their ducks in a row with the DVLA because that means the only way to stay legal is to SORN a vehicle before the MOT expires and magically voids the insurance. Which makes a mockery of the statutory provisions for driving one to or from an MOT, doesn't it?
tl;dr version - until and unless it's been before a court, and ideally all the way up, it's just opinion, and we're each entitled to hold our own. |
Well I know it's been in my terms and conditions of insurance policies I've read through.
If your car is stolen, that might be another matter, as you're not driving it. But if you are driving it, cause 3rd party damage then the insurance company can maybe legally recover costs from you. I don't know what the law says about this, if indeed it says anything. Maybe the insurance company will just say he's breached the terms he's not covered, and then it'll come out of the uninsured drivers pot or whatever it is.
There is a specific exemption when driving to or from a PRE-BOOKED MOT or to a place where MOT repairs are to be carried out. (You'd have to justify where you're going as reasonable, you couldn't say live in Manchester and book a test in Essex and just say "oh well I'm on my way to a test" if caught)
Last edited by Llama-Farmer on 12:24 - 04 Sep 2012; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| LordShaftesbu... |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LordShaftesbu...
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Llama-Farmer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Llama-Farmer
World Chat Champion
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Islander |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Islander
World Chat Champion
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Groove |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Groove
World Chat Champion
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Karma :
|
| Posted: 12:28 - 04 Sep 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
I borrowed a van off of a member of family about 4 years ago and got pulled over.
The van had no MOT (ran out a few weeks before).
I thought I was insured on other vehicles (didn't realise it wasjust the policy holder - I was named driver) so I was also driving with no insurance.
60 quid fine which I promplty gave to the van owner for no MOT.
200 quid fine for my lack of insurance. AKA stupidity tax.
My girlfriend at the time was in the passenger seat and was allowed to drive the van back to the owners house. (She was the main driver on our shared policy).
HTH
____________________
|| Past: 1991 Kawasaki ZXR 250 ~ 2003 Honda CBR 600 F Sport ~ 2004 Kawasaki ZX6R B1H 636 ~ 1999 Yamaha R1 ~ 1999 Kawasaki ZX6R J ~ 2004 Kawasaki ZX6R B1H 636 ~ 1998 Honda VTR1000F Firestorm ~ K1 GSXR 600 Track bike ~ K6 GSXR 1000 ~ 2006 Speed Triple 1050 || Current: 2005 R1 https://www.adrucore.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| LordShaftesbu... |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LordShaftesbu...
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry
Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
Posted: 13:41 - 04 Sep 2012  Post subject: |
|
|
| LordShaftesbury wrote: | With respect to the MoT validity, but what's that got to do with your insurance? Is there a clause in your insurance contract that says it's OK to not have a valid certificate if you're on your way to a test? |
Well that would mean describing the difference between a clause, an endorsement and a condition....
Generally speaking (and of course all policies are different, you should read yours), there's not a clause (or even a condition, which it would be in 95% of cases - an exclusion in the remaining 5%) which would state anything about MOT. Usually the wording would state that you must continue to maintain your vehicle to a state of roadworthiness.
Which brings me onto the answer to the original question. Insurance under the RTA is never invalidated - it exists in certain circumstances even when the policy is out of its period of insurance. However, the insurer's agreement to cover the liability in retrospect doesn't mean you're insured at the point of incident - they are two very separate things.
So, your insurance MAY be invalidated if you drive an unroadworthy vehicle which means you'll not be entitled to any benefit under the policy with the exception of the minimum RTA cover as described, which the insurer is unable to escape. That doesn't constitute having insurance, though. You could obtain insurance by deception, using a false name, false credit card and lie about every detail of the vehicle and its use, and the insurer signed to the slip would have to pay for third party liabilities to the extent of the RTA agreement, but the policy would, in that instance, be void.
In massively general terms, with regards MOT - driving with no MOT would invalidate your insurance if the vehicle was found to be unroadworthy at the time of the accident and that the defects were attributable to the accident itself. The actual MOT itself is neither here nor there in the argument because the vehicle can have a valid MOT and still be unroadworthy.
Make sense? |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Llama-Farmer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Llama-Farmer
World Chat Champion
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Karma :
|
| Posted: 13:56 - 04 Sep 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
I know you can now, but still you gotta pay for it which is a bit of a pain.
I'm a lot more organised with everything though, I've got it marked on my calendar which is synced between phone and computers and reminders with plenty of notice set up, for everything from tax, insurance, MOT, servicing etc, along with plenty of other non-car reminders too (peoples birthdays so I remember cards & presents), tax returns & HMRC forms, annual bills and policies (travel, home, etc insurances).
Great thing about that too is appointments like GP/Dentist/other NHS appointments all send me a confirmation text when booked, and can press one button and it adds it to the calendar as easy as that.
Someone sends me a text "pub next thursday 8pm?" phone knows when and where to put that in the calendar when I press the button.
| arry wrote: | | LordShaftesbury wrote: | With respect to the MoT validity, but what's that got to do with your insurance? Is there a clause in your insurance contract that says it's OK to not have a valid certificate if you're on your way to a test? |
Well that would mean describing the difference between a clause, an endorsement and a condition....
Generally speaking (and of course all policies are different, you should read yours), there's not a clause (or even a condition, which it would be in 95% of cases - an exclusion in the remaining 5%) which would state anything about MOT. Usually the wording would state that you must continue to maintain your vehicle to a state of roadworthiness.
Which brings me onto the answer to the original question. Insurance under the RTA is never invalidated - it exists in certain circumstances even when the policy is out of its period of insurance. However, the insurer's agreement to cover the liability in retrospect doesn't mean you're insured at the point of incident - they are two very separate things.
So, your insurance MAY be invalidated if you drive an unroadworthy vehicle which means you'll not be entitled to any benefit under the policy with the exception of the minimum RTA cover as described, which the insurer is unable to escape. That doesn't constitute having insurance, though. You could obtain insurance by deception, using a false name, false credit card and lie about every detail of the vehicle and its use, and the insurer signed to the slip would have to pay for third party liabilities to the extent of the RTA agreement, but the policy would, in that instance, be void.
In massively general terms, with regards MOT - driving with no MOT would invalidate your insurance if the vehicle was found to be unroadworthy at the time of the accident and that the defects were attributable to the accident itself. The actual MOT itself is neither here nor there in the argument because the vehicle can have a valid MOT and still be unroadworthy.
Make sense? |
Does the insurer have the ability to claim those costs back from you then?
In the same way that I've heard for example your friends insurance company can get costs back from you if you drive his car (legally with 3rd party cover) but have an accident. They'll claim of your own policy I believe for the costs of 3rd party damage AND to repair your friends car (if they have fully comp cover) |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry
Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Benno |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Benno
World Chat Champion
Joined: 06 May 2012
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry
Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
Posted: 14:57 - 04 Sep 2012  Post subject: |
|
|
| Benno wrote: | Hold up, did that suggest that if you get your MOT *after* having got insurance, your insurance is invalidated because you didn't have an MOT when you purchased it? |
No, as I said - you'd have to read your policy, but generally it's a Condition Precedent to Liability that the vehicle is 'roadworthy' and this is what it'll say:
If an accident happens and the condition
of the vehicle caused or contributed to
the accident, no cover under the policy
will be provided and instead, liability will
be restricted to meeting obligations as
required by Road Traffic law
(that's Elephant's car policy wording BTW, closest one to hand)
The MOT certificate in its own right, within that condition, bears no precedence to liability, only the vehicle's roadworthiness or, if not roadworthy, the defect being attributable to the causation of / contribution to the incident.
If the vehicle is roadworthy the most likely outcome will be that the insurer will offer you a lower than market value settlement figure on the basis that it does not have an MOT, and therefore is worth less - for the reason you're unlikely to buy a vehicle without an MOT for the same as you would if it had a ticket. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:58 - 04 Sep 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
| arry wrote: | However, the insurer's agreement to cover the liability in retrospect doesn't mean you're insured at the point of incident - they are two very separate things. |
With genuine respect, do you know of the legal basis behind that? Case law, I mean: the only valid test is battle, the only valid outcome is victory.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry
Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| DrDonnyBrago |
This post is not being displayed .
|
DrDonnyBrago
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Jan 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| LordShaftesbu... |
This post is not being displayed .
|
LordShaftesbu...
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:01 - 04 Sep 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
| Benno wrote: | Hold up, did that suggest that if you get your MOT *after* having got insurance, your insurance is invalidated because you didn't have an MOT when you purchased it? |
This bit?:
| https://www.uk-insurance-index.co.uk/articles/5-mistakes-that-could-instantly-void-your-car-insurance-policy.html wrote: | Having a valid MOT is a mandatory condition of motor insurance. The moment you drive without an MOT, your policy is invalidated -- even if you don't have an accident until after getting the MOT. (Aside from insurance, it's now a legal requirement to have valid insurance at all times, even when not using the vehicle, unless you have filed a Statutory Off Road Notice.) |
I think it's bollocks, apart from the fact that it's self-contradictory. If your policy is invalidated the moment you drive then it's also invalidated the moment you don't drive if you don't SORN.
| arry wrote: | The MOT certificate in its own right, within that condition, bears no precedence to liability, only the vehicle's roadworthiness |
But the MoT certificate says on it that it's not a guarantee of roadworthiness. I believe they're two separate things, i.e. you can get done for having an unroadworthy vehicle even if you have a valid MoT.
| ##Paddy## wrote: | If it appears to be unroadworthy they may seize but its usually just a fine. |
Right, so if you don't have any brake lights out, bald tyres etc. etc. they can't seize it just because you don't have a certificate? |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 13 years, 179 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating