Possible invalidated insurance

[daveowen31]

Any help would be massively appreciated.

 

My car tax and MOT ran out a couple of weeks ago. I have just taken the car to Kwik Fit for two new tyres for the MOT and have reversed into someone elses car.

 

Is my insurance invalidated by the fact my tax has run out even though I was driving it to get an MOT in order to get the tax.

 

The driver of the car i reversed into said they tried sounding the horn to notify me but it was not working. The accident happened on the Kwik Fit forecourt, not on the public highway.

[daveowen31]

I have since taxed my car online so the tax start date was 01/03/2011. The accident happened today.

[CRH71]

Is the Kwik-Fit forecourt counted as the public highway?

 

I don't believe it is, therefore the accident happened on private property, so your insurance wouldn't be applicable.

 

More to the point, the other driver has admitted (albeit verbally) to you that their "warning device" (horn) wasn't working at the time of the accident which, in itself, is a contravention of Construction and Use Regulations and illegal!

 

That said, to answer your initial question, YES your insurance will have been affected by the fact that your car was neither taxed, nor MOT'd at the point of the accident. It is illegal to drive a motor vehicle on any part of the public highway unless it is being taken directly to a pre-booked MOT test, not Kwik-Fit for a pair of tyres "on the way".

 

If the insurance company investigated the accident, they would very quickly discover that your tax was invalid (the online transactions have a date and time stamp - it's blatantly obvious exactly when the transaction was made and in this case the purchase of the tax would be after the accident time) and, more importantly, would discover that the MOT had expired "a couple of weeks ago" and had (co-incidentally) been renewed on the morning of an RTA - again, these things are date/time stamped on the servers, therefore the insurance company would know for absolute certainty that your car should not have been on the road at the date and time of the accident.

 

In summary of the above waffling : I think you'll find the accident was on private property, between one unroadworthy vehicle and another and therefore no insurance company would take an interest in it.

[daveowen31]

MOT was still valid today. Only the tax had run out.

[daveowen31]

The other vehicle was not being driven by the owner at the time but by a kwik fit employee.

[CRH71]

Any help would be massively appreciated.

 

My car tax and MOT ran out a couple of weeks ago. I have just taken the car to Kwik Fit for two new tyres for the MOT and have reversed into someone elses car.

 

Is my insurance invalidated by the fact my tax has run out even though I was driving it to get an MOT in order to get the tax.

 

The driver of the car i reversed into said they tried sounding the horn to notify me but it was not working. The accident happened on the Kwik Fit forecourt, not on the public highway.

 

 

Sorry, I was taking at face value your first post.

 

Based on what you have said in your initial post as to the exact circumstances of the accident, I believe my final statement still applies. AT THE TIME of the accident your car tax and MOT had expired, therefore your insurance will not be applicable. However, the accident happened between yourself and another vehicle that was unroadworthy due to having an inoperative horn, and the accident happened on private land, not on the public highway. Your insurance is invalid AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT - it is irrelevant NOW that your car was subsequently made completely legal. If the insurance company check into the nth degree and obtain the server date/time stamps of when the MOT was acquired, then the tax, it will be blatantly obvious that at the precise time of the accident your car should not have been on the public road and therefore the insurance company would be within their rights to refuse the claim.

 

The damage to the other person's car, due to the employee failing to take sufficient avoiding/corrective action will be between the owner of that vehicle and Kwik-Fit's insurance. Kwik-Fit's insurers may subsequently come to you to make good their losses after the event - in that situation, you might be better off talking to your own insurance company when and if the paperwork arrives from the other side, and see what they say. Some companies can be reasonable, others far less so - a lot depends on the company.

 

I'm sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but I do know how nit-picking these people can be (call it bitter experience...) and, technically, you weren't insured at the precise date and time of that alleged accident because your car was, in the eyes of the law, unroadworthy.

[daveowen31]

I made a mistake with my initial post. The MOT was not acquired today but has some time left to run on it. Tax was acquired today but only an hour after the accident and was back dated to the beginning of the month. Should i be directing the owner of the car to take it up with Kwik Fits insurance or should i let him call my insurance where they will tell him to do so?

[TillyGT]

Hi

The only time that this will affect you is if you claim on your own policy for repairs to your own vehicle. You are still covered by your insurance for third party liability and if a claim is made against you, your insurer will settle the claim if you are found to be liable. As for the comment of private property, this makes no difference whatsoever.

[CRH71]

I made a mistake with my initial post. The MOT was not acquired today but has some time left to run on it. Tax was acquired today but only an hour after the accident and was back dated to the beginning of the month. Should i be directing the owner of the car to take it up with Kwik Fits insurance or should i let him call my insurance where they will tell him to do so?

 

That changes things a great deal. As the accident happened whilst the vehicle was being driven by a Kwik-Fit employee, not the owner, it would be advisable to direct the owner of the car in Kwik-Fit's direction initially.

 

From your perspective, based on the information you've now posted in past #7, I believe your insurance would be fully valid and in force in this scenario, especially as the RFL has been backdated to the 1st March 2011.

[daveowen31]

Many thanks for all your help.

[Rob S]

Sorry, I was taking at face value your first post.

 

Based on what you have said in your initial post as to the exact circumstances of the accident, I believe my final statement still applies. AT THE TIME of the accident your car tax and MOT had expired, therefore your insurance will not be applicable. However, the accident happened between yourself and another vehicle that was unroadworthy due to having an inoperative horn, and the accident happened on private land, not on the public highway. Your insurance is invalid AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT .

 

This is incorrect information. The road tax has no bearing on the insurance and the insurance would not be invalidated because of this. If the car was booked in for an MOT and the MOT had expired this would not invalidate the insurance either if there was an accident on the way to the MOT test centre. If insurance was not valid if the car was not taxed or MOT'd then how would people get on who had SORN'd their car and then needed to get it MOT'd before buying a new road fund licence?

[CRH71]

The law is very clear on this point, indeed as are my own insurance documents.

A vehicle may only be legally driven on a public road with an expired MOT if that vehicle is travelling to a pre-arranged, pre-booked MOT test. In this scenario ONLY is the insurance cover in force as long as no other stops were made along the way.

The last three insurance renewals I have had have all stated in the documentation that it is a condition of the insurance that the vehicle is kept road-legal, otherwise the insurance is invalid.

If a vehicle has an expired RFL or MOT and was being used on the public road and an accident occurred involving that vehicle then the insurance company would refuse the claim. It has happened to an acquaintance of mine.

 

"If insurance was not valid if the car was not taxed or MOT'd then how would people get on who had SORN'd their car and then needed to get it MOT'd before buying a new road fund licence?" - I have covered this above. Pre book the MOT and drive straight to it, then straight after the MOT, assuming it is successful, attend the Post Office and purchase RFL. This is how a SORN'd car that requires an MOT can legally be driven on the road with insurance in force.

[Rob S]

What the insurance companys are saying is that the car has to be roadworthy. They would be hard pushed to refuse a claim because the road fund licence had expired if the car was roadworthy. Whilst they could try and refuse a caim if the car was not taxed or MOT's they would have to prove that the lack of tax or MOT was material to the claim or part of a premeditated illegal activity to avoid the tax/MOT. If the MOT and/or RFL had expired by a few days as per the OP's situation then it is unlikely to affect the insurance. If they had been driving around for a few months then it would be easier to prove premeditation. There have been rulings by the ombudsman on this issue in favour of drivers who had expired RFL's/MOT's.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Rob S

[mightymouse_69]

Is the Kwik-Fit forecourt counted as the public highway?

 

I don't believe it is, therefore the accident happened on private property, so your insurance wouldn't be applicable.

 

Probably is.

 

RTA 1988 applies.

[raydetinu]

Agree with rob s , insurance is valid and ok;

the only times it would not be is if the driver does not have a valid driving licence or they did not disclose anything relevant at the time they took the insurance out.

so you can cliam and inform your insurance co. in the normal way, however they may quible about paying for any damage to you car but by law they must pay any third party claims.

just to confirm it does not invalidate your insurance.

ergo if the police stop you and you have no mot or tax, but you are insured, then you get a ticket and most probably points but they do not take your car away as the insurance is not invalidated. however if you have a mot and tax but no insurance then you can loose your car.

check on police site.

[patdavies]

The law is very clear on this point, indeed as are my own insurance documents.

A vehicle may only be legally driven on a public road with an expired MOT if that vehicle is travelling to a pre-arranged, pre-booked MOT test. In this scenario ONLY is the insurance cover in force as long as no other stops were made along the way.

 

Wrong.

 

This is but one example of an exempt vehicle and there is no requirement in law for the test to be pre-arranged - only that it is pre-booked.

 

Case law has also held that it is permissible to stop on the way to the test - the vehicle does not have to be driven straight there

[danielr]

Is the Kwik-Fit forecourt counted as the public highway?

the forecourt is publically accessible and would be deemed as public land.

just the same as a tesco carpark

 

More to the point, the other driver has admitted (albeit verbally) to you that their "warning device" (horn) wasn't working at the time of the accident which, in itself, is a contravention of Construction and Use Regulations and illegal!

their car might not be road worthy, but that's got no bearing on this accident anyway. besides which they might

 

That said, to answer your initial question, YES your insurance will have been affected by the fact that your car was neither taxed, nor MOT'd at the point of the accident. It is illegal to drive a motor vehicle on any part of the public highway unless it is being taken directly to a pre-booked MOT test, not Kwik-Fit for a pair of tyres "on the way".

firstly, you are allowed to stop on the way, there is an example of a man who stopped for petrol and a pack of cigarettes on the way.

 

secondly, you're allowed to drive to pre-booked appointments, not just a pre-booked mot, so provided that the OP had phoned ahead and actually booked his appointment to get the tyres done he'd be fine... if he was just driving around hoping to find a garage then that's a different matter, -but only as far as the police are concerned, not as far as the insurance company is.