Car crash, not my fault, but I don't have an MOT....

[spainfornow]

Hello, really would appreciate some info on this!

 

I was driving in Spain (with insurance, but without MOT) when another driver hit me on the motorway. He did not admit liability and when I took it to a garage the mechanic said the first thing I have to do is get my company to send someone to inspect it.

So two questions - will my company know I don't have an MOT, and will it stop them helping me? I'm not looking for money from them as it was not my fault.

And second, will his insurance company pay up? Will they look for an inspection?

 

I'd be really grateful for any advice

 

Thank you

[crem]

As far as I know, the MOT is an English requirement for English roads. It shouldn't necessarily have an effect on driving in Spain.

[citizenkain]

as far as I know,you need to have an mot as a requirement for your insurance,small print,no mot,your insurance is void,if the insurance does run a check your done

[patdavies]

as far as I know,you need to have an mot as a requirement for your insurance,small print,no mot,your insurance is void,if the insurance does run a check your done

 

Well, I've never heard of that actually. Most policies require that the vehicle is road-worthy but that has nothing to do with having a valid MoT Certificate.

 

In fact, if the MoT is expired, you can drive to/from an MoT test appointment without MoT but the vehicle remains insured.

[heliosuk]

Well, I've never heard of that actually. Most policies require that the vehicle is road-worthy but that has nothing to do with having a valid MoT Certificate.

 

In fact, if the MoT is expired, you can drive to/from an MoT test appointment without MoT but the vehicle remains insured.

 

True Pat but only for that trip on public roads and only as regards the Road Traffic Act..

 

Many policys now insist on a valid MOT to enable the Road traffic Act part of it. However, in EU countries the car must have a valid MOT from the country where the car is registered.

 

It's a very grey area as insurance falls into 4 catergories, Road traffic act, 3rd party and the previous, third party, fire and theft and the previous and fully comp. Each one will insist on a valid MOT.

 

The next thing is that whilst most policies cover use in the EU, they do not cover for more than 30 days within a year without telling them.

 

The upshot is that In my opinion the OP is covered for road traffic act but not for anything else. So he is legal but exposed as regards damage to a third parties property.

Edited October 22, 2011 by heliosuk
Left something out

[rscott101]

I'd have to disagree with you on this heliosuk.

 

I've checked the 3 different insurance policies we have (all from different companies). None of them require an MOT - they all just require the vehicle to be roadworthy. This same issue had been discussed on a car forum recently - of the 30+ people who responded, none found any reference to the MOT in their policy - all just stated the vehicle had to be roadworthy.

[heliosuk]

And the "legal" status as far as I am aware is that a vehicle is roadworthy if it has a valid certificate. If not then from a legal perspective it is unroadworthy. The OP's car might well be roadworthy but unless it has a certificate to say so it is not considered as such otherwise there would be no point in the MOT and all EU countries follow this principal. Whereas we in the UK have an annual testing policy, others have longer time spans but the test is far more stringent and better controlled.

 

So I would say he is technically insured as regards the minimum legal requirements for damage against a third person but not against the property of that person.

 

Interesting one this.

 

Rule of thumb has to be, make sure vehicle documentation is up to date and valid before travelling anywhere.

[tiredTraveller]

As far as I know, the MOT is an English requirement for English roads. It shouldn't necessarily have an effect on driving in Spain.

 

There is an equivalent test (ITV), but I'm not sure what the requirement is there for non Spanish-registered vehicles, or if that would have any effect. Having seen the state of some of the cars I've followed down Spanish roads with foreign plates I'd hazard a guess to say none whatsoever.

Regardless of legal position it is a contractual requirement of your insurance though, and we know how much insurance companies love to pay out, no questions asked when there's a loophole dangling right in front of them...

[T.C.]

As most of you are no doubt aware, a current MOT is only proof that the vehicle satisfied the conditions of the MOT test at the time of the test, it is not a certificate of road worthiness, and therefore the term "Road Worthiness" is not appropriate.

 

Because this is a third party claim, it will have no bearing on making a claim against the third party as the insurers are required to provide a minimum third party cover unless it is specified in the T & C's that no current MOT will result in the policy being terminated, and even then they would have to show that the lack of an MOT directly contributed to the cause of the crash, which means that they would have to prove that the vehicle was in a dangerous or unfit condition for the road. But this is a third party claim, so this is not an issue.

 

However, where it may have a bearing is if the vehicle is regarded a total loss. Because of a lack of MOT at the time of the crash, it will give the insurers the opportunity to make a substantially lower offer as they will regard it as being of less value than a vehicle with a current MOT.

[patdavies]

And the "legal" status as far as I am aware is that a vehicle is roadworthy if it has a valid certificate.

 

Absolutely not.

 

Even the MoT certificate itself states this.

 

In fact, it is possible for a unroadworthy (in law) to pass and MoT test anyway.

[heliosuk]

In fact, it is possible for a unroadworthy (in law) to pass and MoT test anyway.

 

Er......no it's not because the MOT test is there to determine if the car at the time of test is roadworthy in the testers opinion. I cannot think of a situation where unless the test has been carried incorrectly, a situation can arise where the car is deemed to be unroadworthy at the time of test. Therfore it must be that the MOT is a certificate of roadworthiness.

 

I think what you are reffering to is that it is possible for a car to be unroadworthy after the test which is what the test certificate refers to.

 

I spoke with two colleagues today, one of which is a British resident who also has a "winter home" in Spain (he's obviously being paid too much) and my recently permanently recruited apprentice who is Spanish. Both came out with the same answer.

In the case of the UK resident, he says that if the MOT ran out on his Saab when it was over in Spain then he needed to either bring it back to the UK which he can't technically so would get a Spanish test and my Spanish colleague also confirmed that if his Spanish registered ST180 MOT ran out then he was aware that he had to do the same, either get a UK MOT or take it back to Spain.

[patdavies]

Er......no it's not because the MOT test is there to determine if the car at the time of test is roadworthy in the testers opinion. I cannot think of a situation where unless the test has been carried incorrectly, a situation can arise where the car is deemed to be unroadworthy at the time of test. Therfore it must be that the MOT is a certificate of roadworthiness.

 

 

Er...wrong.

 

The MoT test only looks at certain items and checks the 'roadworthiness' of these items.

 

Three quick examples where an unroadworthy (in the eyes of the law/Police) can sail through an MoT test

 

1) Over-tinted front side windows;

 

2) Incorrectly rated tyres (ie the R rating). Breaches type approval and therefore unroadworthy, but not checked in MoT;

 

3) Speedometer not working.

 

BTW, I don't think that you could get a UK registered car through a Spanish MoT or vice versa. For a start, the headlamps dip the wrong way.

[heliosuk]

Er...wrong.

 

The MoT test only looks at certain items and checks the 'roadworthiness' of these items.

 

Three quick examples where an unroadworthy (in the eyes of the law/Police) can sail through an MoT test

 

1) Over-tinted front side windows;

 

2) Incorrectly rated tyres (ie the R rating). Breaches type approval and therefore unroadworthy, but not checked in MoT;

 

3) Speedometer not working.

 

BTW, I don't think that you could get a UK registered car through a Spanish MoT or vice versa. For a start, the headlamps dip the wrong way.

 

Side windows are not tested but overtinting can be failed under general condition of the car. I.e exterior visibility from mirrors.

Tyres R rating and legality is tested as is aspect ratio.

Speedo I will conceed.

 

Most/nearly all cars in Europe now have switchable direction headlights purely as it's cheaper to manufactuer and if not just tape up the . In fact these lights have been available for over 20 years now.

[grahamengineering]

Side windows are not tested but overtinting can be failed under general condition of the car. I.e exterior visibility from mirrors.

Tyres R rating and legality is tested as is aspect ratio.

Speedo I will conceed.

 

Actually pat a non working speedo wont get you done by the police either. only going over the speed limit will which makes it wise to have a working one.

 

I'd of thought that not having a current MOT would likely invalidate your insurance.

[T.C.]

Actually pat a non working speedo wont get you done by the police either. only going over the speed limit will which makes it wise to have a working one.

 

I'd of thought that not having a current MOT would likely invalidate your insurance.

 

Does that mean that all the drivers I have reported and who have been convicted of using a vehicle with a defective speedo were wrongly convicted?

 

Of course the Police will report for the offence if it is found.

 

And as I have already said in an earlier post, simply having an expired MOT is not grounds for invalidating the insurance cover unless it is specific in the T & C's, but in any case they would still have to provide third party cover unless it can be proved that the lack of MOT and therefore the lack of roadworthiness directly contributed to the cause of the crash.

[grahamengineering]

Does that mean that all the drivers I have reported and who have been convicted of using a vehicle with a defective speedo were wrongly convicted?

 

Of course the Police will report for the offence if it is found.

 

And as I have already said in an earlier post, simply having an expired MOT is not grounds for invalidating the insurance cover unless it is specific in the T & C's, but in any case they would still have to provide third party cover unless it can be proved that the lack of MOT and therefore the lack of roadworthiness directly contributed to the cause of the crash.

 

 

You have reported people for not having a working speedo? how just did you manage to do that? The only way of telling is to have the car test driven or on a rolling road. neither of which are available to the police.

 

You have just pretty much agreed with me that no MOT can invalidate insurance. Do you honestly think insurers wont put every get out clause in their small print?

[T.C.]

You have reported people for not having a working speedo? how just did you manage to do that? The only way of telling is to have the car test driven or on a rolling road. neither of which are available to the police.

 

You have just pretty much agreed with me that no MOT can invalidate insurance. Do you honestly think insurers wont put every get out clause in their small print?

 

If you bothered to read my earlier post, I did say than No MOT cannot and does not invalidate insurance, the only issue is the valuation in the event of a total loss.

 

And yes contrary to what you belive or perceive, police can report for defective speedo, although these days it is often dealt with by a VDR (Vehicle Defect Rectification)

 

An Officer authorised by the Chief Officer of Police (Usually Traffic Officer) can examine a vehicle by whatever means are appropriate which can include driving the vehicle.

 

In days gone by it used to be a court appearance, but vehicle defect rectification deals with most con and use offences these days.

 

So thanks for pointing out that for nearly 25 years I did my job all wrong!!!!

[heliosuk]

If you bothered to read my earlier post, I did say than No MOT cannot and does not invalidate insurance, the only issue is the valuation in the event of a total loss.

 

And yes contrary to what you belive or perceive, police can report for defective speedo, although these days it is often dealt with by a VDR (Vehicle Defect Rectification)

 

An Officer authorised by the Chief Officer of Police (Usually Traffic Officer) can examine a vehicle by whatever means are appropriate which can include driving the vehicle.

 

In days gone by it used to be a court appearance, but vehicle defect rectification deals with most con and use offences these days.

 

So thanks for pointing out that for nearly 25 years I did my job all wrong!!!!

 

I have to admit TC I did have a bit of bother with your post and still do as it happens. Whilst I too have pointed out the lack of an MOT does not invalidate the insurance it will severly restrict the cover.

 

What I can't understand is what makes a policeman, including road traffic units, expert enough to determine whether a car is road worthy apart from the obvious and I'd like to know the insurance cover the tax payer has to pay to enable the police to do so given their crash record.

 

I think I'm suitably qualified to determine a cars worthiness after 30 years in the trade and engineering where VOSA come to me for advice, but for a policeman to be both, something has to be wrong. I fell foul of a constable once trying to push his luck when he stopped me for alledgedly going through a red light (which incidently had cameras on it). When I said it was one of those situations where you either went or skidded he wanted to try the brakes which I refused him permission as he was not qualified to do so and backed down. The fact I was in a rare Ferrari might not have helped though!!!

 

Not having a pop but some of the things you see on telly with the police on the roads makes me cringe!

 

Anyway this is drifting off the OP's topic.

[TillyGT]

Hello, really would appreciate some info on this!

 

I was driving in Spain (with insurance, but without MOT) when another driver hit me on the motorway. He did not admit liability and when I took it to a garage the mechanic said the first thing I have to do is get my company to send someone to inspect it.

So two questions - will my company know I don't have an MOT, and will it stop them helping me? I'm not looking for money from them as it was not my fault.

And second, will his insurance company pay up? Will they look for an inspection?

 

 

 

Hi

The Third Party Insurer will be liable for damage caused to your vehicle regardless of no MOT so long as the Third party has admitted liability.

[heliosuk]

But the third party has not admitted liability so will be up to the insurance co's to sort out between them. Problem is that both co's will probably ask for supporting documentation such as MOT and ITV certificates which is where OP could come unstuck.

[grahamengineering]

Spoke to a traffic policeman friend today and he said a non working speedo is not an offense TC. As there could never be any proof of when it stopped working it wouldn't come under general condition either. Also the police would have to place you under arrest to drive your car without your permission and would then of course be leaving themselves open to being charged with the very offense you claim to have reported people on. They could then be leaving themselves open to taking without consent if they dont have reasonable grounds of arrest.

 

TC you do state that if it is on their terms and condition (which it inevitably will be) the insurance may be void without valid MOT and road tax.

[patdavies]

Your friend - traffic cop or not - is wrong.

 

Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 s.35 & 36 outline the requirements for a speedometer.

 

It is an offence not to comply with the regulations.

 

There is no 'inevitability' about having an MoT certificate or the insurance is invalid. Most polices do not require this (although there is the requirement for the vehicle to be roadworthy - which has northing to do with the validity (or otherwise) of any MoT certificate).

 

If you believe what you have stated about the inevitability, then please explain how a vehicle currently without a valid MoT can be driven to/from a test

[grahamengineering]

Pat or TC (whichever you are calling yourself today) Keep reading the regulation you quoted. It distinctly tells you that there are exemptions such as it failing during the journey. As I said earlier there is no way of proving when it failed hence it is uneforeceable.

 

Again if you read the small print on your insurance it will likely tell you the car needs an MOT . Likely including an exception of being driven to and from a testing station for a prebooked test.

[patdavies]

Pat or TC (whichever you are calling yourself today) Keep reading the regulation you quoted. It distinctly tells you that there are exemptions such as it failing during the journey. As I said earlier there is no way of proving when it failed hence it is uneforeceable.

 

Again if you read the small print on your insurance it will likely tell you the car needs an MOT . Likely including an exception of being driven to and from a testing station for a prebooked test.

 

 

1) I am Pat, I am not TC. Nor do I know him/her. Just because more than one person is saying that you are wrong doesn't mean that it is one person posting under different guises.

 

2) I pointed out that both you and your friend were wrong. a non-working speedo is an offence. I have proved this by quoting the relevant legislation. You are now back-pedalling at a hell if a rate, reducing your position to that of enforceability. The offence exists, despite your opinion as to its enforceability

 

3) I have checked several motor policies and I have yet to find one that mentions having a valid MoT certificate . They all have mention of road worthiness - which is not the same thing at all.. It would be a logistical nightmare to provide wording to cover all the times that it is legal to drive on the road without a valid MoT. (eg to/from test - which can be anywhere in UK; to/from repairs after failing test - again anywhere in UK; etc.)

[grahamengineering]

According to the traffic officer I spoke to, the legislation you quote has been superceded into common law by a previous court outcome. Hence the CPS will not prosecute.

 

 

We will have to agree to differ on MOT status. We all know the pages of small print you get with your policy. Some may not but most I well imagine will state having a valid MOT be a requirement. As none of us can see the OP's policy he will just have to see the outcome from his insurer.