Insurance/MOT....
Discussion
To be a little more specific than the simple "no" answers:
No, your insurance won't be void, in the sense that you'll still have the legally required third party cover and won't be at risk of "driving without insurance". There is NOTHING the insurers can put in their policy terms that will change that.
But they can exclude cover that isn't legally required such as own car damage, fire, and theft. They can also sue for repayment of 3rd party payouts if the terms say so.
No, your insurance won't be void, in the sense that you'll still have the legally required third party cover and won't be at risk of "driving without insurance". There is NOTHING the insurers can put in their policy terms that will change that.
But they can exclude cover that isn't legally required such as own car damage, fire, and theft. They can also sue for repayment of 3rd party payouts if the terms say so.
Variants of this question get asked every other week here...
All motor policies require you to keep the insured vehicle roadworthy. Few say anything about the MOT as a MOT pass is only a statement of roadworthiness at the time of testing.
Indeed, I know one owner of a now MOT exempt vehicle that had to adjust the steering dangerously to get a MOT pass, and then re-adjust to safely drive home. (Tester did not understand how a vintage steering joint worked).
All motor policies require you to keep the insured vehicle roadworthy. Few say anything about the MOT as a MOT pass is only a statement of roadworthiness at the time of testing.
Indeed, I know one owner of a now MOT exempt vehicle that had to adjust the steering dangerously to get a MOT pass, and then re-adjust to safely drive home. (Tester did not understand how a vintage steering joint worked).
Variomatic said:
To be a little more specific than the simple "no" answers:
No, your insurance won't be void, in the sense that you'll still have the legally required third party cover and won't be at risk of "driving without insurance". There is NOTHING the insurers can put in their policy terms that will change that.
But they can exclude cover that isn't legally required such as own car damage, fire, and theft. They can also sue for repayment of 3rd party payouts if the terms say so.
To be even more specific, they cannot exclude cover that is not legally required for not having an MOT, they can however deduct 10% if it's felt the car would not have passed an MOT, if it's likely the car would have passed an MOT they can make no deduction.No, your insurance won't be void, in the sense that you'll still have the legally required third party cover and won't be at risk of "driving without insurance". There is NOTHING the insurers can put in their policy terms that will change that.
But they can exclude cover that isn't legally required such as own car damage, fire, and theft. They can also sue for repayment of 3rd party payouts if the terms say so.
However, if the vehicle was "Unroadworthy" and it being "Unroadworthy" most likely caused or significantly contributed to the accident then the Insurer can reject the claim. This is subject to the policy having an "Unroadworthy" clause, that it's upto the Insurer to prove the car was unroadworthy and is caused / significantly caused the accident. They would still need to deal with third party claims but would normally have the right of recovery from their own policy holder
dacouch said:
To be even more specific, they cannot exclude cover that is not legally required for not having an MOT, they can however deduct 10% if it's felt the car would not have passed an MOT, if it's likely the car would have passed an MOT they can make no deduction.
Fair comment - does start getting a little complicated though 
I believe the inability to fully exclude "optional" cover is down to rulings by the Financial Ombudsman rather than statute (as the honouring 3rd party cover is, courtesy of the RTA)?
dacouch said:
To be even more specific, they cannot exclude cover that is not legally required for not having an MOT, they can however deduct 10% if it's felt the car would not have passed an MOT, if it's likely the car would have passed an MOT they can make no deduction.
However, if the vehicle was "Unroadworthy" and it being "Unroadworthy" most likely caused or significantly contributed to the accident then the Insurer can reject the claim. This is subject to the policy having an "Unroadworthy" clause, that it's upto the Insurer to prove the car was unroadworthy and is caused / significantly caused the accident. They would still need to deal with third party claims but would normally have the right of recovery from their own policy holder
To be even more specific if the insurer has a statement around not having an MOT invalidating your cover for your own vehicle, then they can fully avoid any payment for repair or total loss if you don't have an MOT. However, if the vehicle was "Unroadworthy" and it being "Unroadworthy" most likely caused or significantly contributed to the accident then the Insurer can reject the claim. This is subject to the policy having an "Unroadworthy" clause, that it's upto the Insurer to prove the car was unroadworthy and is caused / significantly caused the accident. They would still need to deal with third party claims but would normally have the right of recovery from their own policy holder
I think LV are fairly unique in having the clause in their policies.
Edited by LoonR1 on Sunday 22 November 17:48
LoonR1 said:
To be even more specific if the insurer has a statement around not having an MOT invalidates your cover fornyourbiwn vehicle then they can fully avoid any payment for repair or total loss of you don't have one.
I could be wrong and i often am, but i was under the impression the ombudsman had ruled that they can't do that unless it was unroadworthy and being unroadworthy contributed towards the crash.Retroman said:
I could be wrong and i often am, but i was under the impression the ombudsman had ruled that they can't do that unless it was unroadworthy and being unroadworthy contributed towards the crash.
Find a link to it if it exists. AFAIA there is no issue as it's in the policy booklet LoonR1 said:
To be even more specific if the insurer has a statement around not having an MOT invalidates your cover fornyourbiwn vehicle then they can fully avoid any payment for repair or total loss of you don't have one.
I think LV are fairly unique in having the clause in their policies.
What do you mean as your post has a typo in the important part of the sentenceI think LV are fairly unique in having the clause in their policies.
I've had a nosey through LV's policy booklet and it's not wuite as black and white as it was last time I looked. They still have a clause in their General Exclusions section (I think that's what it was) but it's much vaguer and I'd fancy my chances of overturning it.
It used to be very explicit.
It used to be very explicit.
LoonR1 said:
To be even more specific if the insurer has a statement around not having an MOT invalidating your cover for your own vehicle, then they can fully avoid any payment for repair or total loss if you don't have an MOT.
I think LV are fairly unique in having the clause in their policies.
This is the only LV statement re MOT I could find.I think LV are fairly unique in having the clause in their policies.
Edited by LoonR1 on Sunday 22 November 17:48
"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.
You must give us access to examine your car and if asked, send us evidence of a valid
MOT and/or evidence your car was regularly maintained and kept in a good condition."
I'm not sure this would get past the Ombudsman's guidance on Roadworthiness which prior to the relatively recent change in wording referenced not having an MOT as allowing the Insurer to reduce the payment.
I don't think LV's MOT requirement would get past ICOBS 8.1.2 3)
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?
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?
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. 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?
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff