My daughter has a that is insured by me with my daughter as a named driver. Today she had an accident and the car may be a right off. To make matters worse she realises the mot ran out 2 weeks ago.

How do you think she stands,

1. Will the insurance company find out?

2. Does my daughter have to tell them?

3. Is my daughter a divvy or what?

1. yes

2. yes

3. yes

Is the car your daughters and is she the main driver

Is the car your daughters and is she the main driver

If that's the case, then I'm afraid the policy may not be valid at all, regardless of the MOT being out of date.

Agree with all the posts, very silly thing to do with the insurance also.

Plus even more so, danagerious using a vehicle without a MOT, not just to your daughter but to other road users.

Plus even more so, danagerious using a vehicle without a MOT, not just to your daughter but to other road users.

Why is it automatically dangerous?

The fact that there is no valid certificate does not make the vehicle unroadworthy - it merely means that the roadworthiness has not been checked in line with the legal requirement. No valid MoT is usually a £30 FPN; hardly a punishment in line with having a dangerous vehicle.

(Actually and MoT test does not entirely test roadworthiness, but that's another argument. It is perfectly possible to pass an MoT with an unroadworthy car)

If that's the case, then I'm afraid the policy may not be valid at all, regardless of the MOT being out of date.

That the policy may be void is a very, very slim chance depending on the wording of the policy - and it would have to be very unusual and specific on this point.

Most policies require that the vehicle be roadworthy - this is not the same as holding a valid MoT certificate.

Normally, in the case of total loss, the insurance company will reduce the pat out by an amount commensurate (in their eyes) with the lowering of the value of the vehicle by having no MoT.

If the accident was your daughters fault I doubt the insurers will pay a penny out due to the absence of an MOT. The claims department ask for the mot cert when declaring a vehicle a total loss as the vehicle will deem to become their property.

If the accident was not your daughters fault - slim chance they will pay out at reduced cost.

If vehicle not total loss, insurer may not ask for mot cert when repairs are effected. They didn't when I had my car repaired - however I did have valid mot cert and times have changed in the insurance industry.

Good luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LemonTwist

If that's the case, then I'm afraid the policy may not be valid at all, regardless of the MOT being out of date.

That the policy may be void is a very, very slim chance depending on the wording of the policy - and it would have to be very unusual and specific on this point.

I think Lemon twist is refering to the possibility of fronting depending upon the answer to the question of who is the owner and main user of the car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LemonTwist

If that's the case, then I'm afraid the policy may not be valid at all, regardless of the MOT being out of date.

 

That the policy may be void is a very, very slim chance depending on the wording of the policy - and it would have to be very unusual and specific on this point.

 

I think Lemon twist is refering to the possibility of fronting depending upon the answer to the question of who is the owner and main user of the car.

Yes that's right; I was referring to the fronting and not the MOT being out of date. In my original reply I was saying that if the policy has been fronted, the fact that the MOT was out-of-date would be irrelevant, as the insurer could void the policy anyway. It is very rare for a claim to be fully declined due to a lack of MOT, although they might reduce the payout.

If the accident was your daughters fault I doubt the insurers will pay a penny out due to the absence of an MOT.

There are perfectly legal circumstances for driving a car on the public highway without an MoT or VED - the insurance remains valid. We have not been told whether these circumstances apply in this case, although I doubt it.

As I posted above, unless the policy is very, very unusual and specifically requires a valid MoT certificate, then the validity of the insurance is unaffected. Remember, roadworthiness and holding a valid MoT are entirely different things. A vehicle can sail through its MoT test and still be unroadworthy.

As both LemonTwist and I have stated above, the total loss pay-out will probably be reduced to reflect the lack of an MoT certificate.

If vehicle not total loss, insurer may not ask for mot cert when repairs are effected. They didn't when I had my car repaired - however I did have valid mot cert and times have changed in the insurance industry.

 

They don't need to. It can be checked on-line from V5 data

Under the RTA - if you drive a vehicle without an MOT unless you are taking it to a testing station your insurance is rendered as invalid - HOWEVER your insurers have an obligation to pay any sum due to a 3rd party in the event of a claim against you settled as your fault, they are also entitled to seek recovery from you for their outlay.

It is also quoted that "it is an offence to drive a vehicle on the road without a valid MOT certificate" etc.

I agree that having a valid MOT certificate does not mean that a vehicle is actually roadworthy (it does say that on the back of an MOT cert) however it is a valid requirement the same as road tax or are you saying we don't need that either?

Under the RTA - if you drive a vehicle without an MOT unless you are taking it to a testing station your insurance is rendered as invalid

The RTA does not come into play here.

1) the RTA S.143 requires the driver to hold valid insurance to use the vehicle;

2) the RTA does not concern itself with MoT or VED - these are dealt with under Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994;

2) the definition of an exempt vehicle is from VERA1994 (Sched.2), and includes driving to/from a repair appointment as well as a test appointment. There are other exemptions, but the majority do not apply to the private driver.

If you were right about the RTA (and you very definitely are not), how is a London cab insured/legally driven. They are never MoT'd.

It is also quoted that "it is an offence to drive a vehicle on the road without a valid MOT certificate" etc.

I agree that having a valid MOT certificate does not mean that a vehicle is actually roadworthy (it does say that on the back of an MOT cert) however it is a valid requirement the same as road tax or are you saying we don't need that either?

[edited]

If you were right about the RTA (and you very definitely are not), how is a London cab insured/legally driven. They are never MoT'd.

 

Sorry, my apologies - I didn't realise the the OP was driving a London Cab:rolleyes:

 

An exempt vehicle - as well as not requiring a current MoT certificate - does not require VED (road tax in your parlance). VERA1994 S.5.

Again, apologies - also didn't realise the vehicle in question was exempt.

I also apologise for not using the 'correct' terminology with regards to the VED but this site is for all and sometimes better to use laymans terms so all may understand with ease - I humbly bow to you as I am obviously not as learned as yourself.

Sorry, my apologies - I didn't realise the the OP was driving a London Cab:rolleyes:

I was responding to your assertion that within the meaning of the RTA, it is necessary to have a valid MoT certificate.

Try and keep up

Again, apologies - also didn't realise the vehicle in question was exempt.

You continue to read things into my posts that are not there. Wahst I actually said was:

We have not been told whether these circumstances apply in this case, although I doubt it.

I also apologise for not using the 'correct' terminology with regards to the VED but this site is for all and sometimes better to use laymans terms so all may understand with ease - I humbly bow to you as I am obviously not as learned as yourself.

So why are you bringing London cabs into it when it has nothing to do with this. Different criteria, different type of policy.

This forum is for people to post their problems and ask for assistance, it is not for some to rubbish other peoples replies (knowledge through experience or opinion based. It seems your only way of communicating is to go on the attack - not helpful and unless you have absolute knowledge of anything and everything it might be best to take a bit of a friendlier approach instead of the rude bullish attitude you seem to have.

The fact remains that different insurers have different criteria on what they are and are not willing to overlook - we won't know if this is the case unless the OP chooses to tell us. At the end of the day - none of us can know the outcome until then, we can only speculate based on our knowledge - if we have any.

Pat what can I say. I'm not going to go into all the whys & wherefores cos you already have other than to say your correct no MOT does NOT invalidate the insurance 3rd party or otherwise. It merely reduces the vehicles market value in the event of a write off

& what some insurers will or won't do is irrelevant. Their decisions have to stand up in the cold light of day & any attempt, other than on value, to limit their liability on the basis of no MOT now & in the future will fail.

So why are you bringing London cabs into it when it has nothing to do with this. Different criteria, different type of policy.

I did not bring London cabs into anything to do with insurance. Although it was thread drift, you tried (erroneously) to bring the RTA into play by stating that an MoT was required under that Act. I was merely pointing up an example to demonstrate you wrongness in that.

This forum is for people to post their problems and ask for assistance, it is not for some to rubbish other peoples replies (knowledge through experience or opinion based. It seems your only way of communicating is to go on the attack - not helpful and unless you have absolute knowledge of anything and everything it might be best to take a bit of a friendlier approach instead of the rude bullish attitude you seem to have.

I post here to try and provide relevant and factual advice or correct erroneous assertions. If you don't like/agree with what I am posting then either prove it wrong or [edited]

The fact remains that different insurers have different criteria on what they are and are not willing to overlook - we won't know if this is the case unless the OP chooses to tell us. At the end of the day - none of us can know the outcome until then, we can only speculate based on our knowledge - if we have any.

Nobody is expecting any insurance company to 'overlook' the lack of a valid MoT certificate. What I and 2 other experienced posters have told you is that the lack of an MoT may reduce any total loss pay out - it does not and cannot void the policy.

It is true that we can only comment on the basis of our knowledge - [edited]

Sorry, where have I said that it is an Insurance requirement to have an MOT cert, I have merely stated that it may invalidate your insurance if you don't have one! Sorry, let me put that another way - the insurers may not settle favourably.

Sorry, where have I said that it is an Insurance requirement to have an MOT cert, I have merely stated that it may invalidate your insurance if you don't have one!

:confused:Erm here "where have I said that it is an Insurance requirement to have an MOT cert, I have merely stated that it may invalidate your insurance if you don't have one!"

Sorry, where have I said that it is an Insurance requirement to have an MOT cert, I have merely stated that it may invalidate your insurance if you don't have one! Sorry, let me put that another way - the insurers may not settle favourably.

Sorry getting through, you are not getting through (to Joncris or me).

Could you explain in legality, technicality or just plain English what the difference is between your two statements emboldened above please?

I haven't said it anywhere! Someone else inferred it!

Go bully someone else. I have reported PD's last post.

Unsubscribing.

gettingthrough You stated that you may invalidate your insurance by not having an MOT Can you now tell me why that should be different to saying "its an insurance requirement to have an MOT" either way your saying the same no MOT no insurance ......... probably & I'm saying your wrong

Lastly, I quote from the back of an MOT advisory notice:

"You should obtain expert advice on any defects listed overleaf. Continued use of the vehicle (even though a test certificate may have been issued), may make you and/or anyone who drives the vehicle, liable for prosecution or invalidate your insurance."

I would say the total absence of a certificate would go along the same lines?? Correct me if I am wrong - I am sure you will come back at me anyway!

well, this is a "lively" debate.

please keep things cool.