RTA no tax or MOT, punishment?

[RB Will]

Hi all. Yesterday the brother in law's boss stacked his car into the armco on a DC.
Police attended and while checking him out found he doesnt have tax or a current MOT.

Apparently the police said something along the lines of "you are having a stty enough day so we wont fine you for the no MOT" if that is even their choice?

So what is he likely to end up with?

Will the insurers pay out? or pay and claim back from him as the car shouldnt have been on the road?

I'm my head he is possibly looking at car repair/ replacement, roadside furniture fixing, car recovery, storage, fine for no tax (dunno what this would be) possible fine for no MOT (dunno what this would be) and maybe cancelled insurance so a hike in future premiums.
I'm guessing unless the is any CCTV of the accident then they cant lump a careless driving charge on him.

[Rangeroverover]

Wouldn't it be awesome if he just happened to be "on his way to a pre booked MOT", I think I see a small independant MOT garage owner with ooooh lets say £200 in a brown envelope.

Were he on his way to a pre booked MOT all the beastlyness and horrid consequences would go away; insurers would cough up and everything would be sunshine and picnics

[TooMany2cvs]

Insurance won't hand the bill back on the basis of no MOT. They might if the crash was down to the car being unroadworthy, though.

It's just going to be the tax penalty, I suspect. And, yes, it is the individual plod's decision as to whether to pass the lack-of-ticket back for prosecution or not. Apart from that, the bill for kicking the armco etc straight is going to be landing on his insurer regardless.

[Retroman]

Rangeroverover said:

Wouldn't it be awesome if he just happened to be "on his way to a pre booked MOT", I think I see a small independant MOT garage owner with ooooh lets say £200 in a brown envelope.

Were he on his way to a pre booked MOT all the beastlyness and horrid consequences would go away; insurers would cough up and everything would be sunshine and picnics

I wouldn't bother. The fine for no MOT is significantly less than that IIRC.
No MOT won't void the insurance either.

[akirk]

Retroman said:

I wouldn't bother. The fine for no MOT is significantly less than that IIRC.
No MOT won't void the insurance either.

Good luck
many insurance companies have clauses to invalidate insurance if there is no valid MOT
and the fine can be more than that I believe (up to £1,000?)

[RB Will]

ah so thats all a lot more positive than I had thought then

[HantsRat]

Rangeroverover said:

Wouldn't it be awesome if he just happened to be "on his way to a pre booked MOT", I think I see a small independant MOT garage owner with ooooh lets say £200 in a brown envelope.

Were he on his way to a pre booked MOT all the beastlyness and horrid consequences would go away; insurers would cough up and everything would be sunshine and picnics

So you advise perverting the course of justice instead? OP I really wouldn't take this advise.

[KevinCorvetteC6]

akirk said:

Good luck
many insurance companies have clauses to invalidate insurance if there is no valid MOT
and the fine can be more than that I believe (up to £1,000?)

Can you list some of these companies? I have never seen that in any insurance contract in about 40 years of driving.

[Soov535]

Rangeroverover said:

Wouldn't it be awesome if he just happened to be "on his way to a pre booked MOT", I think I see a small independant MOT garage owner with ooooh lets say £200 in a brown envelope.

Were he on his way to a pre booked MOT all the beastlyness and horrid consequences would go away; insurers would cough up and everything would be sunshine and picnics

Quite possibly the worst advice ever on here, and that's saying something.

Perverting the course of justice over a ding. Good luck in prison you plank.

[HantsRat]

KevinCorvetteC6 said:

Can you list some of these companies? I have never seen that in any insurance contract in about 40 years of driving.

It may be worded that vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition. You will probably find that the insurance will use having an expired MOT as a way to evidence the vehicle was not in a road worthy condition.

Don't forget insurance companies will try anyway they can to get out of paying.

[KevinCorvetteC6]

Having an MoT does not mean a car is roadworthy, similarly, not having an MoT does not mean a car is unroadworthy. For example a car may be refused an MoT on the previous MoT's expiry date. The owner takes the car away and gets it fixed. He then drives it to the MoT station for retest. Should he have an accident on the way he has no MoT but the car is in a roadworthy condition.

[HantsRat]

KevinCorvetteC6 said:

Having an MoT does not mean a car is roadworthy, similarly, not having an MoT does not mean a car is unroadworthy. For example a car may be refused an MoT on the previous MoT's expiry date. The owner takes the car away and gets it fixed. He then drives it to the MoT station for retest. Should he have an accident on the way he has no MoT but the car is in a roadworthy condition.

I never said having an MOT means the car is road worthy.

I said the insurance company will probably try and use the fact that not having one would mean it is not roadworthy to attempt getting of paying out. I've seen it been done before and the insurance companies often win. It would be down to the driver to prove in court it is road worthy.

It's like if an employee was electrocuted at work from touching a printer and the printer had an expired PAT. The printer may have been in a working condition but you would probably struggle to prove that in court if challenged.

[TooMany2cvs]

HantsRat said:

It may be worded that vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition. You will probably find that the insurance will use having an expired MOT as a way to evidence the vehicle was not in a road worthy condition.

They'd have a job, what with the MOT being very clear that it says nothing about roadworthiness apart from a snapshot of some aspects at one particular moment in time...

[Cat]

HantsRat said:

It may be worded that vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition. You will probably find that the insurance will use having an expired MOT as a way to evidence the vehicle was not in a road worthy condition.

Don't forget insurance companies will try anyway they can to get out of paying.

Insurance companies are prevented in law (s148 RTA) from avoiding their obligations to 3rd parties for a number of reasons one of which is:-

the condition of the vehicle

Cat

[HantsRat]

Cat said:

Insurance companies are prevented in law (s148 RTA) from avoiding their obligations to 3rd parties for a number of reasons one of which is:-

the condition of the vehicle

Cat

Correct but they will probably try and get out of paying for damage for the OP's car if it was his fault.

[Retroman]

akirk said:

Good luck
many insurance companies have clauses to invalidate insurance if there is no valid MOT
and the fine can be more than that I believe (up to £1,000?)

I've never seen any. If for some reason they did, the ombudsman's rules are quite clear and over ride independent insurance companies clauses anyway.
No MOT on it's own cannot invalidate the insurance. It might have been the case historically but now it's no longer the case.

HantsRat said:

It may be worded that vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition. You will probably find that the insurance will use having an expired MOT as a way to evidence the vehicle was not in a road worthy condition.

Don't forget insurance companies will try anyway they can to get out of paying.

You're right. They will try and do anything to get out of paying. They'll also try and not break the rules & guidelines set out by the ombudsman
No MOT doesn't invalidate insurance for the simple reason is you can have a roadworthy vehicle with no MOT which although illegal is safe to drive and you can have a vehicle with an MOT which isn't road worthy or safe to drive.

The only way the insurance wouldn't be "valid" is if the vehicle had a defect that made it unroadworthy and the defect contributed to the accident. Otherwise it's a red herring.

[TooMany2cvs]

Retroman said:

The only way the insurance wouldn't be "valid" is if the vehicle had a defect that made it unroadworthy and the defect contributed to the accident. Otherwise it's a red herring.

Although lack of an MOT may well be deemed to affect the value.

[S3_Graham]

Ex gf had an accident with no MOT a few years back. Pleaded ignorance 'oh i lost it etc'. Insurance company never asked for it back. This was a 3rd party policy and she was at fault if that makes a difference.

[dacouch]

HantsRat said:

is road worthy.

I said the insurance company will probably try and use the fact that not having one would mean it is not roadworthy to attempt getting of paying out. I've seen it been done before and the insurance companies often win. It would be down to the driver to prove in court it is road worthy.

I hope you have not been impounding cars for no insurance on the say so of ill informed Insurance staff on the basis no MOT invalidates the Policy in the same way you used to seize Direct Line customers under the DOC where the other car did not hold Insurace

[RB Will]

To update things. Have spoken to the unfortunate chap. His insurance have been fine with it and will be covering everything so all he has to worry about now is a fine from the DVLA I guess