car a right off and no mot.

[patdavies]

 

"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!

 

Do you see that little word 'may' that I have highlighted in red (just to make it a bit easier for you to see). It is a conditional; it does not mean that the consequence is certain.

 

If the reported defect renders the vehicle unroadworthy, then it certainly would render the insurance policy invalid as most policies require the vehicle to be in a roadworthy condition.

 

OTOH, the reported defect may simply be an MoT failure that does not render the vehicle unroadworthy - just unMoTable (if that's a word:p). This precludes the issue of a valid MoT certificate, but does not invalidate the insurance.

 

You stated above that a valid MoT cert. was required under the RTA; then you said that no MoT cert. would invalidate the insurance. Both of those statements were rebuffed. If you were right, for either statement, do you not perhaps feel that the relevant government agency that wrote this warning would have used 'will' instead of 'may' - just to reinforce the position?

[OMyDayz]

But not even having a MOT to see if the vehicle meets the standards required to pass in the first place???

 

I also highlighted 'may' in my text - it is not a foregone conclusion, however:

 

Have just spoken to a family member - has been a motor claims manager for a very large insurer - (give you a clue: ends in 'hill') for 15 years. She has informed me that if she had a £1 for every Policyholder she has had to give the bad news to in this scenario she would be a very rich woman indeed.

 

p.s. there is nothing wrong with my eyesight - as HSBCrusher has said, keep it cool

[freakyleaky]

Well I was under the impression that you had to have an MOT certificate in order to obtain insurance. Therefore does it not follow that if, during the period of insurance, the MOT expires and is not renewed, the insurance would be void?

Or is that not what the argument is about? (i haven't read the whole thread:))

 

 

And please keep it civil or Crusher will start exterminating.

[JonCris]

The insurance is NOT void if there's no MOT

 

Please read the advisory again it refers to possible defects invalidating the insurance not the lack of an MOT. In fact it says that even with an MOT your insurance may be invalidated if there are known defects yet you continue to use it

 

I don't much care who has spoken to whom in their family the family member is wrong & had their client come to me I would have soon had it sorted. The no MOT no liability argument has even been tried in court without any success whatsoever. In fact the Judge was quite scathing about the insurers attempts to avoid liability

 

Unfortunately, as so very often happens these days, when told 'officially' there's no cover the poor unwary member of the public believes it as if was gospel & walks away the much poorer for the experience

Edited June 12, 2008 by JonCris

[JonCris]

If I had a £1 for every claims handler, manager, underwriter who got it wrong I'd not only be very very rich but I'd own the world

[patdavies]

Well I was under the impression that you had to have an MOT certificate in order to obtain insurance.

 

No. Think about it for a moment, if this were the case, how could you take any car with an expired MoT to be tested.

 

You do need an MoT certificate to obtain VED, but not insurance.

 

Therefore does it not follow that if, during the period of insurance, the MOT expires and is not renewed, the insurance would be void?

 

 

No

Or is that not what the argument is about? (i haven't read the whole thread:))

 

 

Yes

[OMyDayz]

Vicious I must say and TOTALLY uncalled for - who are you? God?

 

Well there you go freakyleaky - the gospel according to joncris who along with patdavies is ALWAYS correct - all other input other than their own is just rubbished - you only have to look at a lot of their other postings. I see that patdavies has replied to you - in a very civil manner, he is of course correct that you don't need to PROVE a valid MOT certificate is in force in order to be accepted for motor insurance.

 

JC: I would politely suggest that you take up the OP's case and let's see you cut the mustard. I haven't seen you offer the OP any assistance or useful advice yet though you seem to be saying that there is NO DOUBT that they will win. Or are you not interested in actually helping anyone just abusing others who genuinely are and generally making them feel like crap?

 

Flexing your muscles to hide your shortcomings? Even Claims Manager's take their instructions from higher up - you are so rude! I was talking about her delivering the news not making the decision!

 

I await with anticipation and look forward to the OP getting their desired result at joncris's very capable hands.

[OMyDayz]

Sorry, I had to put this into a larger and more noticeable font as some people don't seem to be able to read as it was before.

 

It can't be that they can't understand the concept; it's so simple....

 

Was there really any need for that?

Again, reported.

[freakyleaky]

Now come on chaps. there is absolutely no need to be so aggressive. This can be a complex issue for people who are not dealing with it day in day out. And for very clever people like yourself's it must be frustrating getting your point across. But please lets do it in a nice and friendly manner. Otherwise you know what will happen. Posts will be edited and threads will be closed, and that helps no one.

I have a couple of vehicles that I have to tax and MOT once a year. It is at those times that I actually think about what you need in order to get what.

I do remember about 12 years that I was involved in an accident and the car was smashed to pieces. it was a total right off. I remember now that the MOT was out of date by 2 weeks and I thought I wouldn't get paid out. But Mrs F has just reminded me that they did pay out but made a deduction of £100 because of the lapsed MOT.

[OMyDayz]

Excellent freakyleaky - good result.

 

I don't remember anyone saying that the OP definitely wouldn't get paid out - certainly not me. From experience, I have been surprised at what some insurers will allow and what some others won't.

 

Let's hope the OP fairs just as well as this seems to be just an oversight on her daughters part.

 

[vusys1]

back to the plot

 

if there is no fronting issue the ins company will usually take 10% of the total settlement offer if there is no valid MOT in place.

 

When you take out insurance over the phone or online they issue a statment of facts which you have confirmed to be true and the insurance have issued a policy on that basis, if any details are found to be unture this can invalidate part or all of your policy

[JonCris]

gettinitrough I've been helping people a great deal longer than you as a number on these boards will attest.

 

However what really rankles is when those who claim to know give advice which is fundamentally wrong & misleading & then get annoyed when taken to task. You even quoted the advisory on the MOT claiming it confirmed your assertion that no MOT meant no insurance when is does nothing of the kind which is hardly helping anyone least of all the OP. In fact as I have already pointed out, & you have ignored, it refers to the condition of the vehicle as a possibly cause for invalidating the insurance & nothing else & even that is incorrect if there is a 3rd party claim

 

Insurance companies can say whatever they like & often do but that doesn't mean it's either law or enforceable as a condition of contract & if they could escape their liability purely on the basis of no MOT then there are many, many instances where they could & would deny liability

Edited June 12, 2008 by JonCris

[NZGirl]

Did we ascertain who this vehicle was owned by? If it is the daughter then I would be more concerned about that than the MOT issue.

 

As we know, there are good and bad insurance companies and some will wriggle no matter what. A company cannot repudiate a claim on the basis of a lack of MOT alone; if it can be demonstrated that the vehicle was not roadworthy, then that is another matter. The lack of MOT will impact on the total loss settlement as that is normally the "current market value at the time of the loss" and a market value would be affected by the lack of MOT.

 

If OP has insured her daughters vehicle as her own or not given accurate information about who the main user is, then that is a material fact that has not been disclosed and most insurers will take a dim view of that.

[OMyDayz]

- True, you have been on here a while but does that automatically mean you are right? Why should anybody listen to your opionion over anybody elses? I have also noticed in a few of your other postings that you are totally incorrect but you don't come across as giving an opinion - more as your word is law.

 

- Who appointed you to take anyone to task? Again, what makes you automatically right? Me? Annoyed? where have I been rude and abusive unlike yourself and PD (I note that posts have been removed for this exact reason and quite rightly so!)

 

With regards to ignoring you I was advised by the moderator to withold reply but couldn't resist this one.

 

Ok, as I have said before, you rubbish my assistance so why don't you help the OP yourself - again you have not added anything that will actually help them. Give us all the benefit of your expertise and let us all judge! It's a fair comment.

 

 

Lets keep this on topic for the OP's sake - I am sure they have enough to worry about without seeing this on their post.

[HSBCrusher]

Lets keep this on topic for the OP's sake - I am sure they have enough to worry about without seeing this on their post.

 

could not agree more.

any more of this arguing will be moved to the bear garden where it belongs

[JonCris]

Did we ascertain who this vehicle was owned by? If it is the daughter then I would be more concerned about that than the MOT issue.

 

As we know, there are good and bad insurance companies and some will wriggle no matter what. A company cannot repudiate a claim on the basis of a lack of MOT alone; if it can be demonstrated that the vehicle was not roadworthy, then that is another matter. The lack of MOT will impact on the total loss settlement as that is normally the "current market value at the time of the loss" and a market value would be affected by the lack of MOT.

 

If OP has insured her daughters vehicle as her own or not given accurate information about who the main user is, then that is a material fact that has not been disclosed and most insurers will take a dim view of that.

 

 

I agree failure to disclose a highly relevant fact such as this could if it has affected the underwriting criteria & therefore level of premium, effect the policy validity. Also the lack of an MOT will IMHO impact very heavily on the market value. As it states on the MOT advisory the MOT is not a guarantee of noteworthiness & in fact if there are known serious defects affecting safety it's these which may invalidate the policy & NOT the lack of an MOT

[zed007]

I like to remind everyone that this forum is to help people / give them advice. not get into stupid arguments.

 

issue about having a valid MOT or not and being on the road is a total diffirent issues. as traders can get trade plates and drive cars (i.e to drop off points) which may not have mot or tax. and the list goes on and on

 

the issue is with missy. from my experience this (Valid MOT etc) is up to the insurance company. Missy you will have to read your policy terms and conditions (the booklet supplied with your policy from your insurers, you should be able to download one from there website). now some insurers still payout even if your dont have a valid mot certificate, but they reduce the value of your vehicle by XX amount for not having a valid mot certificate. but i have seen some other insurers (especally those insurance companys who dont like paying out and find any excuse) say that in there terms and conditions it clearly states that you must have a valid mot certificate else your insurance is not valid, and they are not paying out at all.

 

i think this second approach is a little unfair (but that is my opinion)

 

best of luck missy

 

tell us what happens

[JonCris]

I agree with pat in fact I will say that no MOT will NOT invalidate the insurance particularly when the last one has only just expired.

 

What it might do, & even this is debatable in view of the short lapse, in the event the car is written off it could affect the settlement offer

[poppynurse]

OP - has this been sorted yet?