Insurance/MOT....

[TwigtheWonderkid]

LoonR1 said:

If the policy booklet makes no reference to a reduction in the event of no MOT, then no deduction can be made;

A total loss claim will be based on market value, which will be in the policy. The market value of a car over 3 yrs old with no MOT is undoubtedly lower than one with an MOT, regardless of roadworthyness or condition.

[BertBert]

So what do we think they want that to mean? Must sounds stronger than should. And assuming it's not overturned, what would be the consequences of failing to do one or both?

LV said:

You should ensure your car is kept in a roadworthy condition and you must have a valid
Department for Transport Test Certificate (MOT) if one is needed by law.

[Slidingpillar]

LV said:

You should ensure your car is kept in a roadworthy condition and you must have a valid
Department for Transport Test Certificate (MOT) if one is needed by law.

It could be argued, and I guess Loon was thinking this that the condition is really little different from anyone else's roadworthiness condition now. As the law does not require you to have a current MOT to go to a pre-booked one, you are ok there and the only sticking point is forgetting to renew the MOT.

The value of a vehicle is depreciated by not having a MOT, although even before the pre-60 exemption, the lack of a MOT did not have much effect on a vintage car. I've bought one without a MOT (when they were required) and did not even use it as a bargaining point (cos it's not).

[GC8]

LoonR1 said:

GC8 said:

There are cases/decisions/examples listed in their newsletter where they haven't allowed more than a small percentage deduction for lack of current certificate, where insurers have attempted to avoid.

I have read them all going back over a decade but cannot immediately reference one. I had wondered how the two positions could be reconciled?

If the policy booklet makes no reference to a reduction in the event of no MOT, then no deduction can be made; if it explicitly states that no cover for damage will be provided then they can do that.

We currently have this, albeit with drink driving, which is likely to invoke different emotions. Some insurers say nothing about it and therefore must pay out for damage, others state no cover for own damage, others state no cover at all and any outlay to a third party will be recovered. They are three different stances, all of which are acceptable to the FOS and the FCA.

Thank you. So the instances where the FOS has overruled insurers have involved sanctions that weren't in the policy document and where it is in there, they can do it?

[LoonR1]

GC8 said:

Thank you. So the instances where the FOS has overruled insurers have involved sanctions that weren't in the policy document and where it is in there, they can do it?

IME yes

[LoonR1]

Slidingpillar said:

LV said:

You should ensure your car is kept in a roadworthy condition and you must have a valid
Department for Transport Test Certificate (MOT) if one is needed by law.

It could be argued, and I guess Loon was thinking this that the condition is really little different from anyone else's roadworthiness condition now. As the law does not require you to have a current MOT to go to a pre-booked one, you are ok there and the only sticking point is forgetting to renew the MOT.

The value of a vehicle is depreciated by not having a MOT, although even before the pre-60 exemption, the lack of a MOT did not have much effect on a vintage car. I've bought one without a MOT (when they were required) and did not even use it as a bargaining point (cos it's not).

To be clear, I'm pretty certain the wording from LV has softened from where it was last time I looked. I've already said that I could work around the wording in place fairly easily now.

[Upatdawn]

Its not me or mine but...

a 1971 car, SORN, no test but showing insured on the MID

it gets free road tax but needs an MOT to get that?

has been driven last week so not legally

[LoonR1]

Upatdawn said:

Its not me or mine but...

a 1971 car, SORN, no test but showing insured on the MID

it gets free road tax but needs an MOT to get that?

has been driven last week so not legally

What?

You don't need an MOT for Insurance to be valid. We established that ages back on the thread. We are now discussing one specific set of wording on one insurer.

[Upatdawn]

LoonR1 said:

What?

You don't need an MOT for Insurance to be valid. We established that ages back on the thread. We are now discussing one specific set of wording on one insurer.

which isnt anything to do with the original question but please, carry on....

[LoonR1]

Upatdawn said:

which isnt anything to do with the original question but please, carry on....

The original question was answered several times. You've conveniently ignored all the correct answers given.

Insurance is not void, just because it doesn't have an MOT.

Clear enough?